180 comments:

Excellent. Thank you Ann. SmartVoter.org is an excellent resource and serves as a great place to roll up candidate information in one location. Because of the structured formating it is easier to compare candidates. The structured formating also encourages candidates to list things such as Key Endorsements and Position Statements that might otherwise not get highlighted. Of course this is just a start. It provides a nice outline for each candidate. I would hope each candidate would more further develop their candidacy and positions on their own websites. With links to their personal websites provided under Campaign Contact Information at the bottom of their SmartVoter.org webpage. Just excellent.

Hopefully Karen and Maria will catch up with the other candidates and post their info here.

PS - I just noticed there is opportunity to suggest links to other sources of information relating to the LOCSD election to be listed in the right column of the SmartVoter candidates page. This would be a great place for Taxpayers Watch to post their URL if they only had a website ;-) Richard, you've been offering to forward info about the TW law suit to anybody who asks for it. And its been suggested you upload this info to a web location where it can be more freely accessed. Would you consider posting the content somewhere and providing the URL on the SmartVoter.org webpage?

I rather doubt SmartVoter.org is interested in posting links to the various blogs where the LOCSD and related sewer issues are discussed with heated passion. That might be too much for them ;-) But it might be worth asking them anyway.

I'm sure there are other sources of info on the web which could be linked here. If you have any ideas please consider submitting a suggestion to SmartVoter.org here.

LOCSD GM John Schemp has determined that the Pool Fund money (about $280K) is NOT RESTRICTED as to its use; and intends to recommend to the CSD board to grant him authorization him to access and spend the said funds on the district's out-if-control administration costs.

Only Community outrage has kept the Pool Fund from being spent - too bad that there was not enough TRANSPARENCY in the process to notice the Fire Reserves going bye-bye - bet there would have been outrage over that, too, etc, etc.

As promised, I'm no longer personally addressing people. I'll just discuss factoids that are brought up.

I think that it would be a no-brainer if Taxpayers Watch had their own web site so that Richard LeGros could post on that and gracefully opt out of defacing Ann Calhoun's blog with irrelevant information and slander.

Anyway, the Smartvoter site is definitely a good resource for non-partisan information. I value that information over anything that's posted here.

You can view the TAC report form the trip to Scotts Valley and Discovery Bay.

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/pw/lowwp

On another topic:osos change, why don't you answer shark? I for one would like your take on the use of the pool fund. How would you know about this new take on it if you didn't hear about it here, as there is no TW website? And - how is the changing status of the pool fund either irrelevant or slander?

These are diversions. That's all it is. Diversions. I suppose I can, in a way, link the discussion together with the candidates.

Taking money out of funds that should remain untouched (i.e. emergency services, pool fund) is very premature. The next CSD incarnation will inherit all these deficits in the funds just as the old board did to the new board -- and history keeps repeating itself. Somehow, only the current board is to blame without any look back at the previous CSD audits made prior to the post-recall board.

Maria Kelly and Marshall Ochylski are closely -- perhaps too closely -- associated with the board that really ignited that downward spiral of financial mismanagement. The only response I've heard from them, regarding the issue of restoring the CSD's financial health, is basically, "We'll take care of it because we're qualified," instead of any specifics as to how they'd get that accomplished.

Where are they when these discussions occur? If people feel like this is the only place to discuss the issues, why aren't Maria and Marshall addressing them here? Why aren't they addressing them anywhere? I think Los Osos is tired of all the ambiguity and empty promises.

+ Maria M Kelly: Please get your website published. Have your internet-savvy friend enlist more friends to get it published asap. Just ask. There will be plenty of very capable volunteers. They all need something to put on their resume and designing and publishing a political website for a local government election is as good as it gets. You'll get dozens (possibly hundreds) of hours of free technical support. And everybody - you and them - will share a wonderful experience.

+ David "Dave" Duggan: Please do publish your own website. The SmartVoter.org webpages are a good start. But just that. A good start. If you have something important to say about the LOCSD, the sewer, the many law suits, the past, the future, etc. you need your own space to say it. The web is a good place. Leverage whatever other collaterals your campaign may produce by using them to point people to your website. Then explain yourself there. If you need help with the technology see comment above. There are students in technology, communications, poli sci, art and every other field just looking for an opportunity to use their skills in support of you. You could have your website up and running in a week.

+ All Candidates: Please fully utilize the framework SmartVoter.org provides you to present your candidacy. And to identify why you should be elected versus one of the other candidates. For example: Top Priorities if Elected? Maintaining the solvency of the LOCSD is a priority? Come on. Get real. You're running for a seat on the LOCSD. Can't we presume that? Please tell us how you propose to keep the LOCSD solvent. And if you don't want to keep the LOCSD solvent? That's cool. Please tell us that too. Then tell us why you're running for a seat on the board. And if you are elected what we might expect as a function of us electing you. Thanks.

Also, Position Papers: That sounds too highfalutin. Just tell us where you stand on ... pick any three of the most important issues facing the LOCSD. And may I suggest that the Taxpapers Watch law suit be one of them? And where you stand on using CSD funds to advocate for PZ-related issues maybe another one. And, dang, the position list grows long really fast doesn't it?

Key Endorsements: If you are now or ever have been a member of ------- please own up to that fact. Whether they endorse you or not. Why would you want to keep such a thing hidden? Unless you think disclosing something like that might skew voters against you. All the more reason we need to know before the election. The LOCSD has for waaaay toooooo long been an agency of hidden agendas. And this is why we are in the mess we are in today. Who here thinks if our representatives had been less hidden and more forth-coming about their agendas we wouldn't be better off today? ..... Gotcha! Just joking. Still, wouldn't it be nice if you owned up to what you believe, and what you plan to do about it, and how that may influence how you propose to represent us? What a concept.

Suggestion: Please check your web pages for typos and spelling. I'm a teacher. I've already seen more of these than I care to note. Yes, you are graded for grammar, neatness and clarity of thought. (sigh)

Suggestion #2: We presume you've already had your head examined prior to registering to run for a seat on the LOCSD. So we presume you are of sound mind with a think skin. Please do make sure your personal insurance umbrella policy covers any and all possible fallout from your participation on the board. Many policies exclude such protection. Pay extra for that coverage if necessary.

And lastly, speaking for all of us, thank you for running for a seat on the CSD. We need you. And we appreciate your service. We wish you good luck dealing with the many difficult issues you will be facing. We all wish you better luck than the previous boards. And we hope the members of the previous boards will check their egos at the door and get in line to support you however they can.

I have a question for Karen or for someone who supports her candidacy. I suspect that OsosChange is one of these people.

(Note: right now, she is someone I might possibly vote for ... I've only eliminated two of the five from consideration based on what I already know.)

I've just read Lisa Schicker's deposition in of those many evil lawsuits that has pushed the current LOCSD board over the edge ... she says that she, Karen and Gail moved LOCSD documents out of the office and to another location.

Why?

I would think that anyone running for LOCSD board should be able to explain why they were moving boxes of documents out of the LOCSD office after hours.

Other than this factoid (which I hope OsosChange is willing to discuss) she seems like quite a reasonable choice, even if not currently my top choice.

Oh ... on the other factoid ... the possible misuse of pool funds for other purposes ... I am glad that Osos Change thinks it is not okay to rob Peter to pay Paul, fund-wise. I do have to wonder if this means that OsosChange is a supporter of the TW lawsuit which has this as one of its primary complaints (the use of the restricted fire and bond repayment funds for other purposes).

Maria and Karen's web sites have both been up since last Friday. You're not that informed, Ted, when you're currently looking for "meaningful content" that has been up on both sites for quite a while. I suggest you press F5 (or Refresh) on your browser often.

I have stated here before and will state it again, Lisa claimed (at a CSD meeting, on camera) the boxes were moved by Karen AND Gail, at her, (Lisa's), orders. I've heard that removing boxes of archival and sensitive CSD documents is illegal. Can someone or other in blog-land address this?

Those boxes of "Documents", containing both public and private data, were moved from a secured and insured government office to a private individuals front room...

There are Calif laws specifying how government documents are to be secured to protect the government and the public... If any of the LOCSD documents were to be used in any lawsuit, then the "chain of evidence" was compromised and from that moment forward, every document submitted as evidence would certainly be rejected.

There are many legal ramifications to letting the documents out of a secured setting...

Were any of those documents part of the PZLDF lawsuit...??? Do you think RWQCB or TW might have some legal questions regarding the securing and storage requirements which insure no tampering by either side of the issues...???

How many documents could have disappeared (credit card receipts), how many could have been modified, how many were used to obtain personal information about members of the community...???

Would you lioke to know that Joey Racano had access to your personal data...???

The list of possibilities goes on and on...

Also, what would have happened had McPherson's house burnt...??? Who insured the house & documents...???

The question remaining is where are these documents today...??? I don't particularily want to have some one picking through the dump to find my social security number, drivers license number, address, or checking account number all because boxes of private documents were so carelessly hauled over to Gail's front room... Shouldn't Karen have questioned "why" weren't the documents handled by the County and stored in a secured County facility instead of a private individuals home...??? I thought Karen had some "financial planning" background...??? Has she let her clients data float around in some's front room for all visitors to pour through...???

Shouldn't she have had some serious concern about moving all the documents...??? Did she question what was going to happen to those documents...??? Was she active in helping Gail with some legal crusade and needed to paw through all the documents to try making some case...???

Her participation in this violation of law doesn't not strengthen my opinion of her as a candidate for a CSD which is already under fire for some very questionable actions...

Mike sez:"How many documents could have disappeared (credit card receipts), how many could have been modified, how many were used to obtain personal information about members of the community...??? "

Why couldn't those things have been done while the docs were still in the office. PG13 points out the obvious: Boards and employees and advisors and etc with hidden agendas and plenty of reasons to deep six anything that might not want to see the light of day, both pre-recall and post recall. (Remember WMH's "computer theft?" As the church lady would say, how conveeeeenient. . . .)

Let's don't divert attention from the action in question... Focus just on this one verifiable act...

I'm not saying anyone did change/lose/modify any records/documents... only saying that moving the boxes of documents into a private individual's home with known personal agenda has cast a very large legal shadow on any documents the CSD might want to use in a court... We are not talking about a few copies here, but many boxes of public and private government business documents...

Gail's front room was NOT a government office unless the CSD can indeed ignore/change State laws to suit it's perceived needs...

Karen was a party to that action and may be called into lawsuits because of her role...

osos changling said > PG-13, Maria and Karen's web sites have both been up since last Friday. You're not that informed, Ted, when you're currently looking for "meaningful content" that has been up on both sites for quite a while. I suggest you press F5 (or Refresh) on your browser often.

Excellent. And thank you. I must have missed the announcement. Last few times I looked at each of these sites there wasn't much to read. (I could swear I looked on Friday too. And I always start with a fresh browser.) As I write this I find Marshall and Maria's sites to be the most informative to-date. One can actually discern where they stand on some of the significant issues. One could wish for more explicit descriptions but this is probably the most we're gonna get. Karen's site is an excellent start but despite what you may claim does not yet have any meaningful content on any issues at this time. I'm sure that is coming ;-)

...and so now Karen can put more platitudes and plans on her web-site and talk about all that experience and all those grants she helped get which were none and all those agencies that are just chomping at the bit to work with her which there aren't any and why would anyone think she is more credible than the CalTrans four or three or two so what exactly in her background suggests she will be nothing other than just another lacky for Gail 'the control freak' McPherson?

The County was invited to attend but has declined. The question has been asked as to who the experts are - no one seems to be able to answer this, not even to give an answer to the County.

Candidate Karen Venditti, who has been promoting the event at the BOS and CSD and who knows where else - has been directly asked the question. WHO are the "experts?" She replies with a vague," …people from out of town." Doesn't she know? How can she promote something like this without knowing? If she know, then why isn't she telling? WHAT is the big secret here? She will have to do better than this if she wants votes. I think this community has had quite enough of NO TRANSPARENCY.

I'm not sure I want to waste my time on this thing when I feel confident (unlike this sponsoring group - which is unidentified on the tiny announcement I came by) that the County will bring us this same information with NAMED experts.

The "announcement" says "in partnership with Sierra Club, SLO GreenBuild and Surfrider," but fails to announce who they are!!! Weird!

Maybe somebody will blog here and tell us who sponsored this? I suspect Gail and PZLDF.

Shark "falsified" info he posted in the comment section of this blog? Whaaaatttt? An ANONYMOUS commenter maybe made statements in this space that weren't true? Woa, call the 11 o/clock news.

As for Tonight's info meeting, I suggest anyone interested on getting information on various types of collection systems, get off their butts and go see for themselves, instead of sitting in front of the computer and speculating and/or making stuff up?

As for Mike saying my comment --"Why couldn't those things have been done while the docs were still in the office. PG13 points out the obvious: Boards and employees and advisors and etc with hidden agendas and plenty of reasons to deep six anything that might not want to see the light of day, both pre-recall and post recall. (Remember WMH's "computer theft?" As the church lady would say, how conveeeeenient. . . .)" wass somehow a diversion, I beg to differ.

The issue raised was the possible/suggested "chain of evidence" problem concering paperwork in the CSD office. My question was the obvious one: IF the chain of evidence was broken, then when was/could/ might it have been broken? Before the recall? After? During? It's an interesting question especially if "evidence" in various "trials" could be challenged on that basis. Then, when to start?

Well, as to chain of evidence, at least we know FOR CERTAIN when ONE incident of it happened, according EVEN TO LISA - when she defended Gail/Karen for moving the boxes out, that it was at HER (Lisa's) direction.

Ann, I am not speculating when I say the "event" refuses to announce who their speakers are. That is a fact. If Bozo the clown is expounding on collection systems, I'm not likely to attend. I think it is kind of strange that the speakers are not listed, nor known by those promoting the event, like Karen V.

...you are still using the same post-recall tactic of diversion, Ron might even refer to it a bait and switchy... however, the single point being made was that the moving of government documents into a private individuals home violates State Laws governing storage and safeguarding of documants...

Boxes of LOCSD records were taken to Gail McPherson's house after the recall... Lisa stated that in a CSD meeting... They were seen being unloaded and were seen in Gail's house...

How much clearer must that be made...??? It certainly will be made in court as soon as the CSD-5's attorney raises the first document to be put into evidence...

To go off the path and ask a string of irrelevent questions to misdirect/mislead is typical of the post-recall LOCSD and the remaining handful of followers...

So, if you're keeping score, Los Osos has one CSD Board candidate that is an attorney for Tri-W Enterprises, the same company that made, what?, over $3 million when they sold their difficult-if-not-impossible to develop ESHA-land to the CSD for a failed "bait and switchy" mid-town "sewer-park," and that candidate is also supported by another CSD Baord candidate, Maria Kelley, whose "boss" is Gordon Hensley, one of the chief architects of the unpopular, "bait and switchy" "sewer-park."

Ummmm... nothing fishy there, huh?

Yesterday, I e-mailed Mr. Ochylski this question:

"Do you see any conflict of interests in the fact that you are on the TAC, a candidate for the LOCSD Board, and also an attorney for Tri-W enterprises?"

I AM MR. TUNDE LEMO DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA,MY OFFICE MONITORSAND CONTROLS THE AFFAIRS OF ALL BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN NIGERIA CONCERNEDWITH FOREIGN CONTRACT PAYMENTS. I AM THEFINAL SIGNATORY TO ANY TRANSFER OR REMITTANCEOF HUGE FUNDS MOVING WITHIN BANKS BOTH ON THE LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS IN LINE TO FOREIGN CONTRACTS SETTLEMENT.

I HAVE BEFORE ME LIST OF FUNDS, WHICH COULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO SOME NOMINATEDACCOUNTS AS THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED EITHER AS GHOST ACCOUNTS, UNCLAIMEDDEPOSITS AND OVER-INVOICED SUM ETC. I WRITE TO PRESENT YOU TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTTHAT YOU ARE AMONG THE PEOPLEEXPECTING THE FUNDS TO BE TRANSFERRED INTO THEIR ACCOUNT AS A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR,ON THIS NOTE, I WISH TO HAVE A DEAL WITH YOU AS REGARDS TO THE UNPAID CERTIFIED CONTRACT FUNDS.

I HAVE EVERY FILES BEFORE ME AND THE DATA`S WILL BE CHANGED TO YOUR NAME TO ENABLEYOU RECEIVE THE FUND INTO YOUR NOMINATED BANK ACCOUNT AS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE FUND`S AMOUNT US$9.5MILLION (NINE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY).

AS IT IS MY DUTY TO RECOMMEND THE TRANSFER OF THESE SURPLUS FUNDS TO THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT TREASURY AND RESERVE`ACCOUNTS AS UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS,I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITYTO WRITE YOU BASED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS I RECEIVED RECENTLY FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEEON CONTRACT PAYMENTS/FOREIGN DEBTS TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF PAYMENT REPORTS/EXPENDITURESAND AUDITED REPORTS OF REVENUES.

AMONG SEVERAL OTHERS, I HAVE DECIDED TO REMIT THIS SUM FOLLOWING MY IDEA THAT WEHAVE A DEAL/AGREEMENT AND I AM GOING TO DO THIS LEGALLY.

MY CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS.

1.THIS DEAL MUST BE KEPT SECRET FOREVER, AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE STRICTLYBY EMAIL! / TELEP HONE THAT I WILL PROVIDE FOR YOU, AND THEY ARE PRIVATE FOR SECURITYPURPOSES AS TO FORSTALL INFORMATION LEAKAGE.

2.YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR FULL COMPANY`S NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDINGYOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBERS.

I WILL ADVISE YOU ON WHAT TO DO IMMEDIATELY I HEAR FROM YOU AND THE TRANSFER WILLCOMMENCE WITHOUT DELAY,

AS I WILL PROCEED TO FIX YOUR NAME ON THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE INSTANTLY TO MEET THESEVEN DAYS MANDATE.

I wrote: "I've just read Lisa Schicker's deposition in of those many evil lawsuits that has pushed the current LOCSD board over the edge ... she says that she, Karen and Gail moved LOCSD documents out of the office and to another location."

Toons asked: "Hey Shark, did you see tonight's CSD meeting? Lisa is mad at you for saying she said stuff she claims she didn't say! But she didn't say what. Guess she reads the blogs!"

Osos Change said... "She claimed Shark falsified information that Lisa gave at the deposition for the TW lawsuit."

Ann piled on "Shark "falsified" info he posted in the comment section of this blog? Whaaaatttt? An ANONYMOUS commenter maybe made statements in this space that weren't true? Woa, call the 11 o/clock news."

It would appear that it was perhaps not in Lisa's testimony where she wrote or said that Karen helped out. My mistake. My apologies to Lisa for saying that she said this during her deposition.

The question I have for Karen isn't so much where we heard about her participation in this activity as whether it happened or not.

Does Lisa deny this happened? Did she deny this last night?

Toons later added "Well, as to chain of evidence, at least we know FOR CERTAIN when ONE incident of it happened, according EVEN TO LISA - when she defended Gail/Karen for moving the boxes out, that it was at HER (Lisa's) direction."

So I guess that Lisa is outraged that I mistakenly said it was in her deposition and not that I brought up the issue in the first place.

The question isn't exactly where the statement about Karen's helping was made but is it true and why did Karen participate in this activity which should appear questionable if not illegal to a reasonable person.

I am still waiting for an answer to that one.

Lisa can take her outrage about "falsificatation" and go pound sand with it ... did the activity occur or not? Was Karen participating or not? Has she explained her actions or not?

Ron ... glad you're able to apologize to Maria when you make a mistake. There is another mistake from from a while ago (early August where you say that Maria "didn't give a flip") that you still need to correct and apologize for.

Just so that we are sure we get this one right ... where does Lisa comment on the document removal issue? Is it in print? Was it during a meeting? Let's get the quote right so that Lisa cannot complain that anyone is falsifying anything. If you know the approximate date this was first discussed at a CSD meeting (or if it was last night) please report here or e-mail me: sharkinlet@gmail.com ... thanks again!

Shark said... "It would appear that it was perhaps not in Lisa's testimony where she wrote or said that Karen helped out. My mistake. My apologies to Lisa for saying that she said this during her deposition."

You know what sucks about this, Shark. Your unfounded accusations now appear at the top of this blog and then were discussed at length as if it were true and now waaaaaay down at the bottom you retract the lie you told.

The proper thing to do would be to go back up to the top where you made the false statement and delete it.

The only incorrect part of my statement was the attribution of the document story to Lisa's deposition. I'm owning up to that.

Here's a good question though ... has Lisa denied removing documents from the LOCSD office ... or did she admit doing so during a CSD meeting? If she has admitted this action, your outrage, like hers, would appear to be quibbling over the color of envelope that contains the bad news. Honestly, does it matter if Lisa told us during a CSD meeting or if it was in the deposition? Isn't the issue really whether it happened or not?

I do think you have a good point, though. If Ann is convinced that Lisa did not remove documents from the LOCSD office and that Karen did not participate in such an act, these comments should all be removed.

Steven I trust that you are also advocating that Ann remove any comments she and Ron and perhaps others may have made over the last 1.5 months that say that Maria was in favor of dissolving the LOCSD ... because we all know by now that she was not.

Steven ... I also disagree with you about whether deleting my (largely correct) comment with a small error is the best course of action. If only the blogger software were set up to allow edits we could handle my mistake more gracefully.

I see your point because the mistake should be tackled where it occurred if at all possible. However, because edits cannot be done, that option is not available. That being said, I don't think that the best choice is for the original (and 99% correct) message to be deleted but to trust that those with any interest will read the entire comment thread to get the full story.

Ron noted > Marshall Ochylski... "His corporate client list includes: Tri W Enterprises, Inc."> then Ron said > So, if you're keeping score, Los Osos has one CSD Board candidate that is an attorney for Tri-W Enterprises, the same company that made, what?, over $3 million when they sold their difficult-if-not-impossible to develop ESHA-land to the CSD for a failed "bait and switchy" mid-town "sewer-park," and that candidate is also supported by another CSD Baord candidate, Maria Kelley, whose "boss" is Gordon Hensley, one of the chief architects of the unpopular, "bait and switchy" "sewer-park."

All of which falls under the category Key Endorsements I mentioned in a previous comment in this thread:

*pg-13 said above > All Candidates - Key Endorsements: If you are now or ever have been a member of ------- please own up to that fact. Whether they endorse you or not... The LOCSD has for waaaay toooooo long been an agency of hidden agendas. And this is why we are in the mess we are in today. ... wouldn't it be nice if you owned up to what you believe, and what you plan to do about it, and how that may influence how you propose to represent us? What a concept.

Let's expand the literal definition of Key Endorsements for a broader definition. Key Endorsements should include not only cited 'endorsements' a candidate might receive from some special interest group, club, finance committee, whatever. They should also include 'endorsements' the candidate has made - either explicitly or implicitly - for such special interest groups, clubs, committee's, litigating parties and pending lawsuits, whatevers. If in fact candidate Ochylski represented Tri W Enterprise, Inc in any manner relating to past sewer developments isn't this pertinent to his candidacy for the LOCSD? TO NOT DIVULGE this information seems duplicitious. Why do the candidates think deception serves them or us? If a candidate chooses not to disclose his/her prior associations with all-things-sewer then the assumption should be they are hiding this for selfish reasons. Yes, we are judged by the company we keep. While past performance is no guarantee of future results it's still the best - and often only - indicator we've got. This isn't rocket science! It may well be the Amerikan way to win elections with deception, smoke and mirrors rather than with facts and straight intentions but that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong, wrong, wrong! Transparency in government starts at the local level. If we don't force it here it has no chance of ever making it to the bigs.

Thank you Ron for bringing to this to my attention. I do expect Marshall to respond. No response, no vote. Likewise for the other candidates. I'm sick and tired of all the deceit and deception. Its gained the community nothing but a huge mountain of debt, increasing taxes and assessments, lost property values, no sewer, continuing pollution, salt water intrusion and a load of aggravation. Candidates, come clean! Claim who you are and what your intentions are. If you've got a past tell me. We all have a past. A past is not a crime. But if you don't disclose fully I will assume the worst. I'm going to vote for who I believe are honest and open candidates regardless of which sewer they may have preferred in the past. For me this election is all about open disclosure versus hidden agendas. I'm tired of hidden agendas. I've got no patience for hidden agendas. I don't care how right you may think you are or how wrong you may think 'the others' have been. Everybody's been proven wrong. We've all lost too much already to think there is anything left to win. Let's just get on with it. Serve the community by serving it openly.

Egads, where did all that come from? Musta been the 5 cups of coffee ;-)

Sorry Steven... You'll have to do your own research since you appear to want to also divert attention from the parties who moved all the documents... Maybe Ron can find them for you as it doesn't take a lot of searching...

I would have to assume you know nothing about a "chain of evidence"... never been on a jury...???

It is no stretch to see Gail and Lisa pouring through those documents on one of the various legal crusades... It is also not out of the realm of possiblity that documents could be modified, shredded, created while in her possession... You would have to consider Gail's public statements, motives and her SoCal history to understand why those boxes of documents should never have gone to the McPherson house...

If they took up so much space in the CSD office, then they should have go to an other secured government facility storage... however, they were not taking up too much space, they were being searched in some legal campaign... Just where are all those documents today...??? Did they go to the dump...??? to Redding...??? to Edwards construction yard...???

You should be afraid of where your personal info that was in those boxes has gone...

...as for you comment about deleting lies, you should go back 3 years and delete or correct a few made by the post recall CSD...!!!

Shark Inlet > Steven ... I also disagree with you about whether deleting my (largely correct) comment with a small error is the best course of action. If only the blogger software were set up to allow edits we could handle my mistake more gracefully. I see your point because the mistake should be tackled where it occurred if at all possible. However, because edits cannot be done, that option is not available. That being said, I don't think that the best choice is for the original (and 99% correct) message to be deleted but to trust that those with any interest will read the entire comment thread to get the full story.

Wow, how civil! There is still hope ......

Steven raised a valid point and Shark responded with an equally valid response. They are both right. IF Blogger allowed for a comment to be appended it would indeed be appropriate for Shark to append a clarification. But such editing for clarification should be appended as an attachment. The original content should not be edited. This is a sublty of time sensitive digital content. Digital content is amorphous and so easily modified and altered that editing original content once published tends to subvert the legitimacy of the medium. This is especially true of blogs. Blogs fill a unique niche. Being digital and easily published time is a key aspect of their essence. Some imprecision is sacrificed for the immediacy of publication and to allow for rapid feedback. Constantly editing and revising the original content - albeit a worthy thing to do for content integrity - doesn't serve the purposes of the blog. Better to note errors than to rewrite the content. And of course, if possible, its best to append the correction as close to the item being corrected as possible. Given the relatively small number of comments on this blog it is appropriate the correction be made in the comment thread. Anybody reading the thread is likely to read the entire thread and will therefore catch the correction. If the blog had a larger readership with much longer comment threads where a reader is not likely to find the correction buried in the comments it would be appropriate to ask the blog author to make some notation regarding the correction at a higher level.

Of course all this presumes the error falls outside the range of normal integrity of the blog. I question whether the comments on this blog have established a range of integrity such that something like this needs correction. If so heaven help us all as we're going to be spending more time editing prior posts than getting on with the business at hand.

How is representing a client in the sale of a property years ago a conflict of interest right now? Marshall hasn't hid that, at a little forum the other night he did state he represents them but we were all unclear as to the bearing of a property they had no controlling interest in? It belongs to the CSD. In fact if you go back to the TAC days, he actually went to a BOS meeting to let the county know that his client was not happy about the site being called "Tri-W" since they were no longer the owner and the negativity around the name was a problem hence it is now referred to as "The Mid-Town" site. It actually came up several times during the TAC - not new information.

Please clarify.

Sorry Ron, I'm unemployed, I don't have a boss. If I was getting paid by someone for my work efforts, then I would have a boss.

Marshall and I both wrote to Sierra Club saying "no thank you" to any type of group endorsement so that we would not be held to any group or special interest. I will accept a newspaper or individual endorsement but I think this community has had it's fair share of special interest group endorsements.

Shark brings up a great point - Lisa did say it wasn't in her deposition but she never said where or when she did admit that documents were removed and who she named or who was witnessed removing.

Maria asked > How is representing a client in the sale of a property years ago a conflict of interest right now? .... Please clarify.

I didn't say it was a conflict of interest. I just thought it an interesting item which he didn't disclose anywhere on his website. He didn't mention it explicitly like he does on his attorney profile. Nor does he mention it implicitly anywhere else on his site. Nothing. Nada. A convenient omission. He could say that he represented Tri W Enterprises during the sale of the Tri-W property. But he didn't. As I said before, I think it a pertinent fact that should be noted. He apparently doesn't. Until he clarifies I must assume it is self-serving for him not to mention it. Simply put, its MY vote. He hasn't met the open disclosure standards yet. Clarification enough?

You say he hasn't hid this. And that he mentioned it 'at a little forum the other night'. Cool. Glad to hear it. But I wasn't at that little forum. Since he's being so public about it why wouldn't he mention it on his website too? That's the response I'm hoping to get from him. Public disclosure of all-things-sewer.

While we're on the topic of open disclosure .....

Maria > Sorry Ron, I'm unemployed, I don't have a boss. If I was getting paid by someone for my work efforts, then I would have a boss.

Don't be obtuse. It doesn't serve you. You know exactly what Ron is saying. While I appreciate Ron can be a bit much. And he is often lacking certain niceties. He is simply asking you to own up to whatever pertinent associations you may have with other interested parties in all-things-sewer. That's not an inappropriate question. See my previous comment above regarding Key Endorsements. There's enough history here and there's enough smoke there to give credence to that question. If you choose not to disclose such associations that's cool. Its MY vote. And you haven't met the open disclosure standards.

Let me make one more thing perfectly clear. I'm not out to get you. Or Marshall. Or any of the other candidates. I'm not into smear. I've described what my criteria are. Candidates either meet them or they don't. I respect that you participate on this blog. That's a bonus point in your favor. I wish the other candidates would participate too. I would like to hear more about where they're coming from, what they think and what they think we ought to do. As I've already noted Marshall and your websites are the better ones but I still find all the websites lacking in that regard. As I'm also finding your hesitation to own up to public disclosure of sewer related associations.

PS - Are you and Marshall joined at the hip? Are you running on a joint ticket? What is that ticket?

The reason I ask is it sure seems you are quick to endorse as well as defend Marshall. That's cool. Nothing wrong with that. Clearly you respect him and think him a great LOCSD candidate. I'm curious though, since we're electing only two candidates to the board, if the two of you are the chosen ones you pretty clearly represent a voting block. So what exactly is the ticket and how will it mesh with the other perspectives still sitting on the board?

PG 13 - I have stated on several occasions, I know Gordon and Richard, I met Pandora a little over a year ago, June '07, Bob Semmonson is on the TAC with us, I met Frank Freiler when I campaigned last time. So other than the recalled directors and the Solutions group members, who else counts interested parties in all things sewer? I suppose you can count all the voters who supported the passing of the 218 - we have a common interest in seeing the county finish the project.

I apologize but I'm genuinely not clear on this statement: "As I'm also finding your hesitation to own up to public disclosure of sewer related associations."

Los Osos is hindered by it's theories of collusion and fear and agenda the result being we don't listen or hear each other. Suspicion is rampant.

In regards to working with other board members, those board members who would like to focus on resolving the bankruptcy and the districts solvency, we are in agreement. Do you watch the board meetings? I believe I can work with the directors as long as it's not personal - it has no place in that venue, it hinders the governance of the district to not listen to the voters, you and everyone else.

I have served on the water ops committee for 2 years and the focus on the sewer and the expenditures on all sewer related issues, after losing sewer authority, have burdened this district. Putting the numbers side by side - this expense out paces all others.

Shark Inlet, you crack me up... you state that your baseless mistaken accusation that in some way Karen Venditti did something illegal is just a minor little part of your comment... only comprising of 1%.

The fact that you are making this accusation just 6 weeks before Karen is asking the community to vote her onto the CSD board is convenient... and you dont think it's important to correct the mistake by removing it off this blog.

I would contend that the accusation you are leveling at Lisa pales in comparison the the impact that your lie could have on Karen's campaign... but you know that... and damaging Karen's reputation and possibly affecting her campaign would actually make you happy I am sure.

By the way, since you have jumped all over this Lisa removing documents thing... maybe you will answer the questions I asked Mike... s/he sure won't.

Let me ask you...

Would you mind pointing me to the California Government Code section that you think Lisa violated here? I would be interested in reading about this law.

And why would anyone challenge these documents in a court of law? Would it be to get them excluded as evidence? That's the only reason I could see to object to a document trying to be introduced at trial.

What documents in particular are Gordan and Richard trying to get excluded?

These are very interesting comments. Please elaborate on what you think Gordan and Richard are wanting to hide?

6200. Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book,or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited inany public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, orfour years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book,paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any otherperson to do any of the following:

6201. Every person not an officer referred to in Section 6200, whois guilty of any of the acts specified in that section, is punishableby imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail notexceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Since Bruce (Phi Beta Krapa)kept most stuff in his head, maybe they were just tring to figure out how CSD past business was conducted and just how many possibly incriminating documents were already removed by the previous majority upon leaving office.xfzvz

Did the Lisa led CSD move boxes of documants and records into Gail McPherson's house...???

That's all that is needed to establish a resonable doubt as to the accuracy of any and all documents collected by the CSD...

The side line of course is whether Karen, the candidate, participated in moving the records... If so, then it would seem reasonable to question her managerial expertise...she was supposedly a "financial planner"... She actively participated in placing all the records of financial transactions by the CSD in to a questionable legal light knowing fullwell that lawsuits were probable over the halting of a legally approved sewer...

Would seem very poor managerial judgement at the very least...??? We've had enough poor managerial decisions by this csd, time for someone without a "no sewer/move the sewer" agenda to serve on this Board...

I don't care if you think I should attend more CSD meetings. If you are concerned with the "space" in this blog you could skip over my comments or those of individuals responding to me if you mean that you don't want me to waste your time. If you are concerned with energy efficiency, I can assure you that whether I make a comment or not has no impact on the total energy usage on your computer or the servers at blogger :)

To our friend Steven, I cannot tell you the section of code which was violated, but I believe that at a face value interpretation, the code Richard provided would seem to apply.

However, to be clear, I wrote "activity which should appear questionable if not illegal to a reasonable person" which doesn't claim illegality. I don't believe a reasonable person would view the after hours loading into a truck of government documents that would typically be kept in an official location as a legal activity. Do you want to put forward an argument that moving these sort of documents is kosher?

I guess the questions are whether it happened (and I remember Lisa telling us during a CSD meeting that it did and that she ordered it) and whether Karen participated (and it was not in Lisa's deposition but in the TW letter to the grand jury and based on the sworn testimony of Faith Watkins.

Presumably if Lisa did say something at a CSD meeting, one of our intrepid reporters will find the exact date and quote.

So ... the key question here is whether Lisa is entirely denying document removal as described by Faith ... and whether it actually happened. The only entirely unbelievable possibility here is that there was no document removal but Lisa said there was.

Aside from that odd case, I would suggest that if Lisa denies and it did not happen (and maybe if Karen and Gail both deny they were involved and if someone can spin a good story about why Faith would make stuff up) that my comments on this matter should be removed if Ann makes that decision.

On the other hand, the other two possibilities are that there was an action which would appear illegal according to the law Richard provided ... and Karen should explain why she participated.

Perhaps the reason that Marshall wants the Tri-W renamed "mid-town" site is for the County's "survey" -- just another trick to try to pull on the stupid people of Los Osos.

Since 50% of the town voted the Tri-W site down with Measure B, maybe by renaming it to "mid-town" it will confuse some who really don't want the Tri-W middle of town site, but might vote for it by another name. Might work....

Obviously, the RWQCB wants Tri-W from the comments they've made.

Obviously, Paavo wants the Tri-W site too or he wouldn't have said to the RWQCB that the land there would act like a sponge. What an incredible statement. He should be fired from the project for either being very very stupid and/or very very biased.

First, the County hasn't officially taken the project. There could be an EIR lawsuit, etc.

The real problem is that Paavo said the Tri-W property would act as a sponge and that is a lie and he knows it. It shows what the County wants - Tri-W.

We know what Maria and Marshall want - Tri-W.

We know that Paavo still works for Pandora and that Maria and Marshall are in that mix and still work for the recalled board.

And no, the Tri-W won't cost less - unless you are only looking at Maria, Marshall and the bias TAC committee's bogus numbers.

Didn't you hear Chuck speak about the NWRI initial conversations? You sure aren't writing/blogging about that!

You do not live in the PZ. You lie about that. You are assigned by the county and Dreamers to police the blog and promote Tri-W gravity.

Sewertoons,

You know very well that Tri-W and gravity will cost people their homes more than other cost effective projects. Maria and you (don't you own two homes and believe those two homes will be worth so much money after the big sewer?) know this in your heart, but greed prevails with both of you.

Shame on you, Maria, and all your Dreamer buddies who only want their property value to increase at the expense of everyone else.

Lisa's comments from the meeting (at about the 18:40 mark of the slo-span audio version of the meeting):

"I have something else to add. Normally in this part of the meeting what we used to do and what I'd still like to add now if is okay with the president is ... um ... to talk about current events and newspaper articles and things that were in the paper or in ... um ... in the press and there is something very important I would like to say about a blog that I was ... I don't usually read the blogs but once in a while somebody sends me a clip and in this clip this person called sharkinlet who I understand writes all the time. Don't know who this person is I wish they would just say their real name ... there is an anonymous factor on the blog. But anyhow, sharkinlet ... um ... said that they read Lisa Schicker's deposition and then made some accusations that are completely false. Completely false. You can read my deposition. It's public record. um. We are being sued by Taxpayer Watch. Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros, etc., Joyce Allbright, and ... um ... those comments that are on that blog are completely false. And I am very ... um ... I just want to put the person on notice ... whoever sharkinlet is or if you know who sharkinlet is tell them to please remove those comments because they obviously did not read my deposition because what they say in there is completely false. Thank you."

Um ... Lisa ... um ... I did read your deposition. However, it was about the same timeframe as when I read the TW letter to the DA and Faith Watkins testimony to the Grand Jury. I mistakenly got those items confused.

That being said, your claim that I did not read your deposition is completely false. Completely false. I would ask you to officially retract your false claim at the next CSD meeting.

Seriously Lisa ... if you did not participate in document removal at CSD offices with Gail and Karen, why did you ... at another CSD meeting ... tell us that you asked Gail to do this?

Perhaps you don't understand what "Completely false" means. Let me help you out. False means not true and completely means something like 100% or in the entirety. When strung together as you did in your CSD statement, it would imply that you are now claiming you didn't remove documents from the offices. But then ... because you've already told us that you did do this ... why are you now changing the story.

As for my real name? If you feel uncomfortable calling me sharkinlet you can refer to me as Amanda Hugginkiss or Budd Tuggley (no offense to the guys on Car Talk).

As per Lisa's suggestion that false statements being removed, I would think you would want to remove your statement about Paavo working for Pandora and ... well ... much of the rest of your comment including your statement that I don't live in the PZ and that I am working for the County or the Dreamers.

As for the portion of your comment with content and not unproven and false slander ... the NWRI. I've commented before about the NWRI report and the biases in that report.

1. Immediately after the recall, Lisa appointed KAREN VENDITTI as her 'assistant'; who she directed to gather CSD data for her at the CSD offices. Further, Lisa directed Karen that she could give CSD staff orders to perform tasks that Lisa wanted done. CSD staff can verify this behavior by Lisa and Karen; behavior which caused havoc in the office as the lines of responsibility and proper communication were compromised.Further, the CSD board may only set policy; any one board member cannot direct staff to do anything without a board majority decision to do so; an then onlt through the General Manager. The only person who may direct staff to spend staff time (hence your tax dollars) is the GM.

2. Immediately after the recall, Lisa directed KAREN VENDITTI and GAIL McPHERSON to remove CSD files from the CSD office. The removal of the files (many boxes) was witnessed by several CSD staffers; and was described in the declaration of Faith Watkins.

Lisa has acknowledged in several taped CSD meetings that she did indeed direct Karen V. and Gail M. to remove files. Where the files were moved to is unknown; or what became of said files.

The directives given by Lisa to Karen V and Gail M. is subject to Government Codes 6200, 6201; which I have posted in total in a prior post above. In short, such acts, if proven in court, are illegal and subject to monetary fines and prison internment.

You may determine for yourself if this information pertains to the upcoming elections and the canidates.

I'm sort of surprised that 'getrealosos' has the guts to even come back to this blog after being caught in his outrageous lies and pure gossip mongering...!!!

But this is Los Osos and there still are a handful who think the CSD will somehow magically be given back the sewer project... and unfortunately those few will continue character assassination with lies and enuendo... getrealosos is one of the very worst...!!!! getrealosos has not been correct on Shark, Richard, Gordon on anyone he continues to libel... getrealosos is simply a vindictive loser who is pouting like a spoiled child needing a sound swat on his butt...!!!

Shark sez;"....if you mean that you don't want me to waste your time..."

Are you developing a "thin skin" from all the responses you are receiving of late,or what?

I don't think I implied that you are "wasting" my time, (like you, I have lots of time),but if you took it that way, that's your problem. I've been reading you for a long time. Sometimes I believe what you say is valid, other times, no, but that's human nature, isn't it?

What I really meant to say was, like you often do, you beat an issue into the ground (remember TR-W?)and in this case, it really is of no importance as to the removal of anything. It will all be settled in court in a few days and you will have all the answers (hopefully).... and much more stuff to comment on, I'm sure.

Which brings this to mind. With all the criticism put forth on this media about how wrong, bad, incompetent or whatever y'all find the current CSD, no one, NO ONE, has ever suggested what should have been done considering the condition the previous majority left the CSD. It seems the only thing they did was stop an un-popular, over kill, over priced project. Most of you say for that reason the CSD was forced into bankruptcy. No blame is placed on the previous administration, because, to repeat Mikes old song and dance,"...they stopped a approved, permitted...blah, blah...." therefore the deposed majority are guilt free from any part of the bankruptcy thing. I say this is wrong, because they are every bit as responible as the present BOD. Sure, the new guys made some bad choices and errors....don't we all?....but they were "fighting for their lives", with very little resources left by the bad choices and errors of the previous BOD. As far as "robbing Peter to pay Paul", what would you do with limited or no resources? Unless you are finacially blessed, I'm sure you have done the same. I do and Lord knows the Federal Government does.

...and as far as the folks running for office...after reading their positions I have to chuckle a little. They promise to "settle the bankruptcy thing". What in the world do they think the present CSD has been trying to do....besides having to put up and prepare with/for the TW lawsuit. Don't you agree that there is alot on the table for them even though the sewer is not their problem, yet?

No one seems to try to help or suggest anything valid as y'all should (IMHO), because it's EVERYONES problem. You for one, seem to find pleasure in including "umm" in reporting Lisas' speech pattern, not understanding that she must pause and consider every word she utters because of folks hanging onto her every word. I wonder how well you speak, publicly, in front of folks who hate your guts.I don't understand why you found it necessary to do that. After all, in you posts you add pauses (ah's and umms' and "hummm's"and other cutesy pie stuff). Is that to add drama or what?Hummmm!

franc4 said > With all the criticism put forth on this media about how wrong, bad, incompetent or whatever y'all find the current CSD, no one, NO ONE, has ever suggested what should have been done considering the condition the previous majority left the CSD.

Gadzooks, what blog have you been reading for the last couple of years? Did you just join us last week? For anybody to make that claim is completely mind-boggling. It wouldn't take much review of any of the past comment threads to see how mistaken you are. There has been a long well-documented history of commenters making exactly those claims. In much greater detail supported with much more substance. Indeed, that very claim could be considered one of the most discussed and argued issues on this blog beginning before the recall votes were even counted. 'Nuff said. You're simply dead wrong.

I forgot to address one of the points that GetReal made. He or she said that the County hasn't taken the project yet (presumably in response to my comment that the LOCSD is not legally allowed to work on a project). 100% correct. However, I think that the likelihood that the PZ homeowners will turn down the County proposal seems low and even if they do, the LOCSD is dead in the water from point of view of developing a sewer ... unless, of course, the property owners don't like the County project (and say "no thank you") but somehow trust the LOCSD to develop a project. This seems about as likely as hell freezing over, pigs flying or Lisa admitting that she made a mistake.

2nd ...

Richard, do you happen to know the dates when Lisa admitted that she directed Karen and Gail to remove the docs? I remember it as well, but not the date. I would like to get an exact quote to make it clear that my error was only to say that Lisa's fingering of Karen's involvement was at the deposition.

Frankly, this whole thing is really silly. Somehow the key questions here are whether Karen participated (which she hasn't denied doing to my knowledge), whether it was illegal (presumably a lawyer would need to be consulted here, but the law Richard gave us chapter and verse of would seem to say that at least a "no no" was committed) and whether Karen now views her actions with regret or whether she stands by them.

I really think that someone running for office who had been associated with this sort of action ... in any way ... would want to clarify their position rather than to let others draw conclusions without a statement from the candidate.

3rd ...

Franc, not really thin skin. If you think I beat things into the ground ... I am sorry. Again, you don't have to read the comments.

Now to your other issues. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is only legal if you are moving funds that are not already designated by contract for another purpose. That is not the case here.

I also disagree with you when you say "... NO ONE, has ever suggested what should have been done ..." because I, for one, have done exactly that. For some time now I've said that the best strategy (assuming the goal was to move the treatment plant from TriW) of the post recall board would have been to:

1 - contact the SWRCB staff and to say something like "hey, we've recently had Measure B enacted and we're requesting permission to halt the construction until we can get a court opinion on the matter".

2 - Ask for Seitz to continue working to oppose Measure B (but to ask him to work independently of the board who supported B) so that a definite court clarification could be obtained.

3 - Request the SWRCB permission to pursue a possible an out-of-town plant idea while continuing the collection system construction.

The problem was that the new group landed in office full of piss-n-vinegar and they were willing to do stupid things just to appeal to their very partisan base even though the election was extremely close.

As for Lisa's "um" pattern, I am not critical of it at all. When I speak in front of others I do the same thing. I just wanted to make sure that my "transcript" was accurate. Based on the nature of Lisa's complaint, it would appear that she is going to be very willing to say that I got her comments entirely wrong if I even miss a single "um". Come on, her complaint was that I was incorrect about the physical location she was in when she made comments about asking the documents to be removed ... doesn't that strike you as anal retentive at all?

Lastly ... you suggest that when Lisa speaks in public, it is front of people who hate her guts ... why do you think that there are so many people so angry with her board. Do you think it could be because they accomplished zero percent of what they promised us during the recall and because we're now deep in debt when we were not at all before she took over the board presidency?

Buel illegally locked Lisa and Julie out of the documents room -- under YOUR DIRECTION.

YOU and YOUR RECALLED BRETHREN then plundered the documents room, removing any and all documents implicating you in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Too late, the new board majority moved to save whatever files YOU had not stolen. If Karen saved any remaining files, at the request of board members, then she did so appropriately and to the benefit of the community, since the recalled board had already illegally ripped all the files that told the real story.

Fortunately, the recalled has left such a trail of illegalities that a schoolchild could pick it up. So, while Richard and Gordon have managed to elude the law up to this poi9nt, there is still hope in the community that they will be exposed to federal racketeering charges in the future. This is no joke.

P.S. These are the people Maria works for and who she calls her friends.

1. You believe that Prior CSD staffers and Boards had removed incriminating CSD documents as a coverup to illegal behavior.

2. You believe that Lisa Schicker ordered Karen Venditii and Gail McPherson to remove CSD documents from the CSD office to an unknown location in order to 'save' the remaing incriminating documents that you believe that prior CSD staffers and Boards had missed.

?????????????????????????????

As Mr. Spock often said when faced with a conundrum, 'fascinating'. Just a few observations.

1. After the recall and the new CSD board was completely in control of the CSD offices, what was the point of removing the remaing documents at all; as the remaining documents were already in Lisa's control?

2. If the documents that Karen and Gail removed contained the few remaining incriminating documents, when will we and the recall board see them so the CSD can prosecute?

3. Your proof, evidence, etc. to back up your claims is/are.....?

4. As you believe that Karen performed a selfless act that benefitted Los Osos by her 'saving' said documents, does not Karen now (especially as a CSD canidate) have a greater civic duty to return said documents to the CSD so that the 'saved' documents can publically expose the illegalities?

Even if what you say is true (and it sounds a bit specious at least), I can't really see how a Feb 2006 removal of documents to (possibly) Gail's house could reasonably be portrayed as "the new board majority moved to save whatever files ... not stolen". By 2006 (heck by October 2005) the board was entirely in the hands of the CCLO crowd and removing documents from the LOCSD office doesn't really make sense, let alone as a way of "saving" the documents.

Lastly, you are asking us to believe that there was such gross disregard for the law before the recall that nearly any post-recall action should be viewed as reasonable as a way of "righting wrongs". Essentially you are telling us that the post-recall CSD should be allowed to take illegal actions just to get even with the pre-recall board who did evil stuff. That is where the laws of our land would disagree with you. Your suggestion is more akin to the tribal behavior of the Hutus or the Tutsis. The tribal notion of "they did something wrong so we need to get back" is something that we ought to strive to overcome.

So then the question is - since "saving" them was unnecessary - what were they doing with these files? Were they just in the mood to see how McPherson's living room would look redecorated with file boxes?

"getrealosos, even if what you say is true, and I do not believe it is even close, how do two wrongs make a right?"

"does not Karen now (especially as a CSD canidate) have a greater civic duty to return said documents to the CSD so that the 'saved' documents can publically expose the illegalities?

"The tribal notion of "they did something wrong so we need to get back" is something that we ought to strive to overcome."

Two wrongs don't make a right? Follow your own advice much???

If there was a chance in hell your similar comments were honestly, logically thought through, then why the hypocrisy of a frivolous Taxpayers Watch lawsuit threatening vital services -- WHEN YOU WON'T WIN!

Have you ever considered how your failed vengeance suit will look in HINDSIGHT?

Have you ever individually considered why Taxpayers Watch loses every suit and filing? Dumb move after dumb move. And this is just another one of those. I say "individually" because as a group you operate like rats on a raft. Individually maybe one of you has second thoughts about participating in yet another fiasco at taxpayer expense.

Hilarious to see Richard talking about "civic duty" -- like starting Tri-W and starting the avalanche of bankruptcy was his civic duty??? Isn't that fresh!

Gail has chosen to do nothing with the master file of documents she keeps. Maybe it's because you only differ in tactics, not goals.

You seem to believe that somehow the legality (or not) of Karen's actions has some relationship to the appropriateness of the TW lawsuit. There is none.

Even so, the TW lawsuit does not threaten any services at all. If TW wins, it is the individual board members who were sued who will have to pay and not the CSD. (Note: it is the LOCSD board members who asked for the CSD to pick up their individual legal bills.) If, on the other hand, the LOCSD wins, I am sure that they'll be able to recover legal fees from TW. No matter. The key seems to be that you believe that TW will lose and that the lawsuit is frivolous. The legal signposts would suggest that TW will win. Furthermore, even if they lose, it is not appropriate to call the suit frivolous because to do so means that you believe that the spending of fire funds on legal fees to be A-ok.

As to your comments about Gail ... are you saying that you know she has the documents. Hmmmm ... didn't Lisa just tell us at the most recent meeting that it is "completely false" that documents were moved out of the LOCSD offices?

Are you saying that Karen did not participate in removing documents from the LOCSD offices?

In the context of the lawsuit, the key part of the lawsuit is the misuse of funds. To say that the lawsuit is frivolous means that you don't believe it is wrong to use the funds the way the post recall board did.

If I am wrong, please explain how you could oppose the misuse of funds but at the same time oppose the lawsuit complaining about the misuse of funds.

We need to stop picking on poor old Getrealosos as that poor soul is obviously mental.

Besides, we all can safely assume that Getrealosos is just another reincarnationof 'oldduffo', 'conspiracyboy', 'keepmhonest', 'thedamntruth', 'sewermagic', etc. No doubt Getrealosos will morph into another anon soon enough in order to argue the same old nonsense anew.

Shark, if you are so damn intelligent, so informed, so reasonable, why don't you identify yourself? You rail against Ron for using a documented statement that says one thing in fact. For weeks now you have called for him to apoligize to the party he was referring to and admit he was 100% wrong. Even though what he quoted was exactly what was written. Now when you do it you poo poo it and add something else to it. Did you apoligize to Lisa? Three years now and counting, and here you are,Shark Inlet, Mike, and Sewertoons and lets not forget Richard, still out for blood for the current board. The past Board did nothing wrong, but the current board has ruined our lives forever. Anybody that posts blogs as much as you people do have an obvious agenda. For a community that has had the sewer taken out of their hands, your group still ensues a night and day vigil on blog sites. What are you so worried about? Shark, you tell publicly who you are and I will do the same.Sincerely, M

History will prove who the mental case is, Richard. Seems to me you've got the edge on delusion here. Funny how people accuse others of the very same things they are guilty of. Human nature. Never fails.

M...you're an ANON like Sharkinlet; you are being hypocritical to ask Sharkinlet to reveil his/her name when you do not reveil yours.

AS for an 'agenda', the consistant message of Mike, Sharkinlet, myself and others over the last few years has been that elected officials must obey the laws that we all live by. I have clearly posted the pertainent laws; and the facts of the CSD5's behavior and violations of said laws.

By the way, you were correct when you posted "The past Board did nothing wrong, but the current board has ruined our lives forever"

I believe that Richard, Shark Inlet and Sewertoons have an agenda because they're overcompensating for their missteps in the past. They have this whole "Whoever barks the loudest..." mentality, which is expressed by a measly 10% (if that) of the community.

.... and 80% of the community wants the County to do the project and do not need Gail 'the control freak' and her three or four remaining puppets to run a water department and hiring Blesky was a brilliant move so that that we could have someone in charge who was even more ignorant and incompetent ...and shreiking weekly at County sups when you do not even understand what you are saying and have nothing of substance to back up what you are saying is what exactly....??

The reason I choose not to reveal my name is that I am intelligent and reasonable. I quickly realized that in this debate people tend to discredit others based on personalities and names and the history associated with those names. Take Richard, for example. Every so often when he makes a comment here, there is an ad hominem attack on his person that poses as a response to what he said.

Now that my name seems to be somewhat associated with my point of view, it might be a good time to adopt a different moniker to keep you all off balance.

I have not done so, however. I have only posted under my own screen name since I've adopted it.

Considering the level of hate that has been tossed my way, don't you think it would even be considered wise to be anonymous? I suspect that you prefer anonymity yourself, M.

One of the beauties of the internet is that it allows for anonymity. Anonymity forces people to deal with the content of an argument rather than the perceived person behind the discussion. Simply put, if all I am is words, you still need to consider them but you knew me as the old lady down the street who yells at kids to get off her lawn you could disregard my words without even thinking them through.

At least that's the theory.

Lastly, you ask that I apologize to Lisa. I did and continue to apologize for saying that it was in Lisa's deposition where she said that she asked Karen and Gail to remove documents. I was wrong to say it was in the deposition. It appears that it was at a CSD meeting where she told us this. I apologize for the misattribution. (Clearly Lisa was complaining about my mentioning of the deposition. If Lisa would like to deny removing documents from the LOCSD offices ... which she has not done ... she should be clear about this and she should explain why, about 2 years ago, she told us that she did it.)

On the other hand, Ron has never apologized in any way for telling us something about Maria that was false and when his mistake was pointed out, he refused to admit he was wrong.

Lastly, you ask what I am worried about? During this election season I am worried that we get the best candidate for the position. I will stand up for individuals who are not being treated fairly in my point of view (Ron's castigation of Maria is an example of this) and I will ask questions about candidates who have tried to avoid them (my question of Karen's involvement in Doc-u-gate is an example).

Should Karen be willing to explain, we will all be better able to vote.

I suspect that if she even comes out and says "yes, I helped Lisa move documents out of the LOCSD office ... afterhours ... but it was because she asked me to to it" she will win some votes from those who support Lisa's agenda for our town.

Simply put, if PG and others are asking Maria and Marshal to fess up about their past connections, it would be really nice if Karen were asked to do the same. How long has she been associated with Lisa and Gail? How many years has she been a financial adviser? (And what the heck does that even mean? Does it mean that she helped people fill out loan documents or does it mean that she helped people balance their budgets and make long-term investments?)

If Karen were to just answer the questions people have about her she is far more likely to get votes.

In any case, M, the key point here is this ... neither Karen nor Lisa have denied moving documents. If Lisa comes out now and denies doing so (and can explain why she told us in the past that she did) I would be happy to apologize. If Karen explains her position it would be nice. Until she does, we should essentially assume that she did so because she agrees with the Gail-n-Lisa point of view. This doesn't make me want to vote for her even though it might appeal to some others.

They have this whole "Whoever barks the loudest..." mentality, which is expressed by a measly 10% (if that) of the community.

change, you are speaking about the 12 people - (no, make that 8, there are fewer and fewer) that grumble loudly and are "no sewer" in the back of the room at CSD meetings perhaps? THAT measly part of the community?

Actually, I don't think anyone prefers to have no sewer or upgraded wastewater treatment at all. To repeat that comment over and over again makes it seem like you're reading off cue-cards that Pandora Nash-Karner gave you.

Shark Inlet said: Simply put, if PG and others are asking Maria and Marshal to fess up about their past connections, it would be really nice if Karen were asked to do the same.

No, not 'really nice'. It is expected. (read: demanded.) My comment above regarding full disclosure of all-things-sewer was directed to ALL the candidates, not just Maria and Marshall. What can possibly be unclear about this? How can this be confusing? Or open to subjective interpretation? If somebody hauled boxes of records out of the CSD office this counts as something-related-to-the-sewer. If somebody in a position of authority directed somebody to lug boxes of records out of the CSD office this counts too. If somebody represented anybody related to the sewer in court - be it an individual, a group of individuals, a business, or even another lawyer ;-P - don't 'cha think that is related? Look, nobody cares if you live next door to or down the street from some other player in this drama. We're not concerned if you acknowledge them by name in the supermarket. But if you've met together to strategize things-sewer and/or belong to a common sewer-related organization or special interest group then that association should be acknowledged for the sake of transparency. If you are a candidate for the LOCSD and endorse a particular perspective about anything relating to the sewer and that perspective will influence how you represent me on the board why not disclose that? No, there's no law demanding that. There's no law against hidden agendas, secret associations, or being a low-down weasel-like conniving SOB. Well, yes, there is karmic law. But you're pretty much free to be and do whatever it is you feel like doing to get elected. Whether something is right or wrong isn't the issue. That's way too murky. All I'm saying is you're proposing to be my representative on things-sewer. I want to know how you will represent me. Is that too much to ask?

As previously noted I'm still undecided. I'm an independent voter. Even if I still had an opinion about the sewer I'm not clear what difference that would make anymore. I'm willing to listen to any candidate and give them fair consideration. But if you don't give fair and full disclosure you're off the list. I appreciate there's a lot of mud-slinging and innuendo going around. Just respond to it straight up. Don't try to be cute or nuanced with your denial. (See Maria's 'boss' response above or the I deny saying that here when I really said it here defense.) That doesn't work anymore.

You are both right...plenty of "suggestions" (I've read them all) were given. Only problem is, the suggestions were after the fact (read: Monday morning quarter-backs) Were either of you (and Mike)out there lobbing the CSD with these many suggestions? Not at all. Y'all were too busy telling them what they should have done....in between Mikes personal attacks on the individuals. How were they to know what you wanted if you didn't tell them....face to face?If you ran on a platform of "Move the Sewer"...and were elected, don't you think that's what the majority (no matter how small)of the people wanted? So why all the surprised folks when they stopped the project? Who did you vote for, anyway...or did you?...and will you next election?I would suggest that alot of folks who have so much "advice" here never did vote.Shark....as for the Peter Paul principle and you being so knowledgeable on law and procedures (no sarcasm intended), what does the law say when the ONLY assests available are from a different fund and something must be paid?To Richard: From all the fuss about the "records" does that mean you will file a separate lawsuit reguarding said records or is that "bundled in" the existing suit......so you can lose on both issues for one fee?

Please remember that several of the fateful decisions of the LOCSD board were made very quickly and with little opportunity for input. Furthermore, there were voices in opposition at public meetings to each of the mistakes. The problem was that the board chose to ignore the input of individuals who, in retrospect, appeared to be right ... they had a plan in advance and they were not open to the input of others.

As to your question about something that "must be paid" ... that's a tough one. The LOCSD was required to pay the CDF for fire services and yet they chose to spend the money that had been set aside for this purpose on other things (like Ripley, Wildan and BWS) which were not required. It sounds as if your understanding of the situation is a bit backwards.

I'll respectfully disagree. After all, if voters don't know that Karen is the hand-picked-CCLO-PZLDF "if you've liked the last three years, vote for me and you'll get more of the same" candidate, it is only because Karen hasn't been open with her background.

It is those who have followed the situation closely who would know what the various candidates think.

However, just because someone hasn't been following things closely in the recent past doesn't mean that they can't and won't make a good decision when given all the facts.

Changling said > To be undecided, at this point, is to plead ignorance.

Whatever. I've been paying attention through many years of pain and aggravation. I've been mis-led, mis-CSDirected, defrauded, robbed, mis-represented, mis-governed, lied to and spun in circles. I'm not too concerned about what you might think about me. Not a twit. I've stated as clearly as I can that my vote is based on honest transparency. And honest transparency is still being proven. From that perspective there are far more reasons NOT to vote for some candidates than to vote for them.

Since you've already made your decision and are already so clear about your vote I would like to hear who you are voting for and why. And please, no generalized statements and platitudes. Tell me which of the two candidates are getting your vote and give me details, specific reasons and performance-based proof (if such exists) for why they are getting your vote. Also, no smears or innuendo or smoke or spin against other candidates. Just tell me why you feel so strongly about your decision FOR your two favorite candidates. I am sincerely asking you for this. As I am sincerely asking anybody else who is already so sure of their vote.

Since you for years swam in the cesspool of that blog over at the Tribune; where you admitted you do not live in Los Osos and have absolutely no stake whatsoever in ANYTHING that happens in our community; where you swung your Christian "values" as a club with which to sanctimoniously beat everyone you felt was not "Christian" enough for you; only to engage yourself in some extremely base and scurrilous rumors, innuendo and name calling, which makes you, of course, a hypocrite extroirdinaire; I've always wondered why the affairs of our community which you do not belong interests you so. Are you lonely? Is it a social networking thing for you? And why the switch over to this blog instead of returning to the polluted waters of the Trib blog, waters you helped foul with your vitriol and extrememly unchristian behavior? Just wondering.

Even though you were writing to someone else, I would still like to chime in here.

Personally, I will vote for Karen because I have watched her on the TAC committee. I don't know her, but her professional behavior on that committee was refreshing. I know she seems to be fair, honest, hard working and professional. Both "sides" seem to like her and respect her.

On the other hand, after watching Maria (I don't know her either) on the CSD and TAC meetings, she is another story. She doesn't see anything wrong with Tri-W and gravity, or the expense that will force hundreds out of town. This is not the riff-raff, but middle income working families.

She promotes Obama yet he would never think about throwing working families out, or taxing them out of their homes. She obviously works for Richard and Gordon.

Maria owns a home, owns a vacant lot and after kissing county butt will benefit her and her Cal Poly husband. As I've said before, her motto could easily be "Vote for MY future in Los Osos". Remember that Cal Poly profits from the biggest (Chumash) dig in California history.

As far as Marshall, he was there in the beginning with Pandora and Paavo bunch. Why would the CSD need another attorney when they have one for the district?

You don't live in the PZ do you? I hear that you do not.

If you think that the county has been fair, paved our roads, given us our share of property tax money, did a fair 218 vote, are really looking at the best projects for the sewer, then vote for Maria and Marshall. They are the county.

If you don't live in the PZ then you haven't been ripped apart by them financially and mentally. You are lucky.

It is a waste to write to you. I've said before, you are a phoney and don't tell the truth. Your job is to police the blogs, trying to sound fair and polite. But you have an agenda. Your friends at Cal Poly will benefit. You do not live in the PZ. I know exactly who you are and where you live.

Karen runs for herself - she was not hand-picked like you say by Keith or Gail. That is an out right lie. Karen is probably much better equipped to be on the CSD board than all who are sitting now, and much more honest and hard working than some in the past. At least Karen has no personal agenda for her own financial gain. Now that's refreshing. Someone honest!

I know people who know her well and she has a mind of her own. She decided to run for the community.

Maria and Marshall are running for Tri-W because Gordon and Richard can't!

getrealosos.... YOU seem to owe some apologies... Your outrageous and totally unfounded remarks have a number of us wondering what you have to gain... Why else would you lie and make up rumors...???

You are exactly why this community wants to dump the Schicker Sewer CSD and get back to resolving the financial damage done... We don't need a Board who still thinks they will somehow derail the County Sewer... The Bankruptcy is not going away just because Schicker and Tacker slink off and hide...!!!!

You do owe this community and a few very good folks apologies for YOUR PERSONAL lies and rumor mongering...!!!!

Okay, Mike, Richard, Frank, or whatever you want to call yourself at the moment.

Why don't you tell us exactly what I lied about? I dare you.

I didn't make up any rumors either. They were there long before I came on this blog site.

YOU, Richard, caused the financial damage to the community when you decided to start a flawed project before the recall, Measure B and the 218 vote! YOU, and Pandora were determined AND PLANNED to bankrupt the CSD as soon as the recall happened.

So, Richard, tell me what I lied about, what rumors I made up? I can't wait to hear!

You couldn't pull it off. You can't name one lie (because there are none) and can't say one rumor (I didn't start any). Typical Republican stategy - turn everything around to avoid the truth. Good job Richard.

You are full of shit.

I admire honest people. Karen is honest. Maria is not.

YOU did great harm. Maria will too, afterall, she'll sit on the board for you and Gordon and will do whatever you and Gordon tell her to.

P.S. ARE THESE LIES?

THE COUNTY HELD AN ILLEGAL 218 VOTE AND ARE HAVING ONLY THE PZ PAY FOR SALT WATER INTRUSION, AND OTHER THINGS THAT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

THE COUNTY PUT ILLEGAL LIENS ON THE HOMES IN THE 90'S BEFORE THE 218 BECAME LAW, THEN SUDDENLY REMOVED THEM AND PANDORA FORMED A CSD (SELLING PONDS AT TRI-W WHEN THE RWQCB HAD ALREADY SAID NO TO THAT).

THE COUNTY REFUSED TO HAVE THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE 218 WHEN IT'S THE STATE'S GROUND WATER AND BAY SHOULD BE FEDERAL MONEY.

PAAVO SAID THE TRI-W IS A SPONGE AND SHOWED HIS BIAS FOR THE TRI-W AND TELLS LIES TO THE RWQCB TO GET HIS WAY...YOUR WAY! MARIA'S WAY!

THE COUNTY WORKED WITH THE RWQCB AS GOOD COP, BAD COP TO PASS THE 218 WHILE BOTH AGENCIES ARE PUSHING FOR TRI-W.

THE COUNTY AND RWQCB, THROUGH BLACKMAIL, HAD THE HOMEOWNERS VOTE FOR A BLANK CHECK. THEY WENT ON RECORD TO SAY THAT $25,000. WAS THE ENTIRE COST. THAT'S AN OUT-RIGHT LIE. WHAT ABOUT LATERIALS? WHAT ABOUT OTHER FEES AND CHARGES?

THE COUNTY HAS SPENT ALMOST $6 MILLION FOR PREVIOUSLY DONE STUDIES AND FOOLISH DOG AND PONY SHOWS AND MAILERS.

I am not a phony and I do tell the truth to the extent I understand it. Your claim that I don't live in the PZ is incorrect. I do. You claim to know exactly who I am and where I live. I challenge you to demonstrate this by giving my name and address here in this blog. If you cannot, we will know it is you who is the phony who lies. If you do know my name and address, you would know that I do live inside the PZ ... and you will be demonstrated to be a liar.

If Karen is, indeed, running by herself, she should explain how she is independent of Gail and Lisa because her past actions would suggest otherwise.

What I find most interesting about your message is that you are both complaining that people are associating Karen with Gail and Lisa but at the same time you are telling us that Marshall is the puppet of Gordon and Richard.

If you're a gonna get all indignant about people associating Karen with Lisa and Gail .... folks she has had a clear association with, you shouldn't tell us that Marshall is associated with Gordon or Richard which he is not.

I'll explain why I'm voting only for Karen in the simplest, most eloquent way possible.

She's got the package.

She has the background and experience that shows that she can deliver solvency and stability to the LOCSD. Because of her impressive track record working with banks like Washington Mutual and Capital Corp of the West with several licenses (see TAC application) and has worked for several environmental groups. With her consistently mild-mannered demeanor and grace, she has consistently advocated a level playing field of ideas without aligning herself politically with the current LOCSD board.

Karen does NOT associate herself exclusively with people like Gail McPherson and Lisa Schicker. Yes, they do contribute to her campaign but she runs independently without feeling the necessity to integrate their ideas as her own. She understands that both those figures have misled as leaders, but her attitude is basically this: let's think outside of the box -- positively with precision -- to create a more balanced environment for everyone. Yes, everyone.

In summation, she's got the chops to show understanding of the issues as she has an affinity for complex and qualitative decision-making. This is all within her comfort zone.

It shouldn't take you long, especially because you love to twist things around, to unscramble this and figure out that I know who you are, turkey.

Oh, you would NEVER, being the coward you are, EVER admit that I know who you are, so I expect nothing less than your full denial, denial being your weapon of choice.

Now, without further ado, I would like to introduce the blog to one of The Worst People in Los Osos...none other than county-kissin'-Tri-W-lovin'-buckin'-for-a-raise-failed-academic,TEVI SNEER!

Take a bow, Tevi...!

P.S. I never said Marshall was associated with Gordon or Richard, I said Maria was. I did say, if you like Tri-W -- vote for Maria and Marshall, and if you liked the recalled board, you'll LOVE Maria and Marshall.

Obviously you know and always have known who Shark is, because you didn't bother to unscramble the puzzle, and because your husband works with the same gang of money-grubbing bonediggers -- and because you work closely with Shark to bug Ann's site with your stale TW prattle.

How old are you? That's the real question here.

When I ran into you at the last CSD meeting, you looked like you were dead.

Well getreal... you've certainly proved yourself to be quite the intellectual...and still nothng more than a liar and rumor monger...

You've tried unsuccessfully all evening to tell the world just how bright you are and yet have said exactly nothing, nada, zilch...!!!

You don't have a clue who any of us are yet you try to play games to make yourself feel important and wonderful... but bottom line, you are nothing bit a liar and rumor monger...

Go back a few days to your last explosion of lies and rumors... I asked you a very specific question and all you have done is crawled away and hid... Well chum, I'm not going away and I could care less any longer what you think... You don't know the answer to what I asked... You haven't figured out yet that you really don't know who or what your are lipping off about...in fact you sound like the bald headed, MB giglo village idiot... And like that idiot, you've never let facts stand in your way, lies and rumor are all you know...

Before popping off any further, I would suggest you have a chat off-line with Ann... Your crap ain't cutting it here....!!!!

.....yep she is the complete package... another signed sealed delivered repackaged kinder gentler Lisa and that is why Karen shows up at the TAC with Gail's repackaged baloney and having all her campaign material prepared by Gail just like Gail prepared it for Lisa and then Chuck and Steve who did as they were told and now Karen will do the same and all you have to do is read the material her handler is putting out because it is the same stuff pretending to be new or passing itself off with a clever delivery and trumping up the ordinary as if it is extraordinary and now Gail is just going to instruct Karen to repeat the same catch phrases over and over like the 'oh what a great comment by Mr. Cagel of Orenco' dog and poly STEP revival the other night because no one in that recall has the moxy to publicly admit that four or three or two Caltrans cogs were not prepared and had no idea what they were getting into and got lost as soon as Gail was unable to have a teleprompter script for them and then when all else fails the script goes right back to the recall election plan of innuendo and blaming everyone that disagrees with them and playing the victom which actually works well in Los Osos and ....well, you get the idea.... so Karen may win and so what if have Chuck, Steve, and Karen vote lock-step all the time because it really is no different than before the recall when everything was pre-ordained so Los Osos goes from one silly-but-sad political machine to another sillier-but-sadder one and the vulture lawyers slithered out the back door and we are now on, what, the third GM the Gail machine has stumbled across in three years in an attempt to actually convince anyone paying attention that the CalTrans four or three or two know how to govern the CSD when all they want to do is talk about STEP and whatever did happen to just move the sewer because if you haven't heard it's being moved and running the CSD is just a side job so why not put Duggan and Perlman in and at least there would be more orginal thought than the latest Gail retread......

I love it when people semi-out me a cryptic yet still insulting fashion.

Why didn't you go with the more formal Stiv Neener?

That being said, as you seem to know who I am, I presume you know that I do live inside the PZ and you were just counting on my reluctance to be outed to protect your misstatement. (Out of curiosity, I would love it if you would e-mail me sharkinlet@gmail.com with a brief explanation of your detective work ... I am wondering whether someone spilled the beans or how you figured it out.)

In any case, when you wrote "Maria and Marshall are running for Tri-W because Gordon and Richard can't!" it is pretty understandable if people think you are saying that Marshall is associated with Gordon and Richard. My apologies for misunderstanding your intentions.

Now, to the question of what you did mean, "one of The Worst People in Los Osos"? That seems more than a bit over the top. More flattery, perhaps?

Your suggestion that I "work closely" with Sewertoons is pretty funny because I have never met her. My gosh, I go to Vons, not Ralphs, for goodness sake.

And, because I still prefer to be relatively anonymous (mostly because I prefer people's words ... including my own ... be evaluated based on their content rather than because of other, irrelevant factors) I will sign off as ....

I keep trying to rearrange my letters and I have to say, LEAKY M. LIARis pretty decent! I'm wondering how long that took to come up with. I got to "milk ram..." and "yam krill.." and then "mare lay ilk" had all the letters but still I appreciated the use of the middle initial "M" which I use daily.

It amazed me that someone that obviously hates me so much spends so much time thinking of ways to denigrate me which is actually to my advantage because it keeps them off the streets and cursing my name in public!

If you come up with something else with a name scramble, please post as I'm impressed because I'm typically pretty good at those things.

I can't believe I stayed up this late trying to scramble my own name...the chess site is slow so what else am I supposed to do!

I am not really worried that someone spilled the beans. I also don't really have a circle of trust as you refer to it. I tend to be an independent thinker and don't really associate with people in the way you seem to think I do. Of all the people associated with the LOCSD or local politics in any way, the only one I've actually met is one of the recall candidates.

I appreciate that you aren't intending to out me any further. (Honestly, I would rather you have e-mailed me with your suspicion than to do so in a cryptic fashion ... but no big deal, as the Oingo Boingo song points out, "No One Lives Forever". For what it's worth, just e-mail me sometime because sometimes the give-n-take via e-mail can be more fun ... or maybe you would prefer to go out for coffee or a beer sometime.)

I was mostly curious how you figured out who I was because so far the only other person I know who has figured out who I am has been Leaky M. Liar.

Yes, we have our own system but are also in the PZ. Because we've got the system we are often overlooked or it is assumed that we're not in the PZ. However, we are very like to join up with the community system if allowed because in the long run it is a no-brainer.

Sounds like we were both confused. I figured there was no way you knew who I was because you insisted that I wasn't in the PZ and you thought that because I wasn't in the PZ I was lying.

Confusion arises whenever there are hidden agendas and anything but the open and honest exchange of facts and ideas.

This is what irks me so much about Ron. Everyone who has read his shtick knows he's pretty biased. However, he has an interesting point of view and often digs up some stuff worth thinking about. The problem is that his bias keeps him from seeing the silliness on the other side. Similarly, Lisa telling people that what I wrote was "completely false" was troubling. After all, if documents were removed, I was right on the key part of what I said.

Again, the hidden agenda tends to cause people to go over the top and maybe be a bit less gracious than they ought to be.

Even if it's a high stakes game for some (for example, to avoid prison or to cash in on some real estate investments), we ought to be as committed to the truth and to effective and clear communication as we can be. To do otherwise is to disrespect our community and to attempt to use it for our personal gain.

I believe that of all the people who participate here, it is Franc who I feel the most in common with some days. She (or he) seems to bristle with frustration when people are unfair in their treatment of Julie, Lisa and the group. Similarly, I get really frustrated when others are unfair toward people I believe are acting in good faith to achieve what they believe to be the best for their community.

I believe that Lisa means well for Los Osos. I believe that Gordon means well for Los Osos. That they disagree strongly about what is best doesn't mean that they don't care or that one of them is in any way evil.

This is why I've tried to focus as much as possible on "show me the numbers" questions which will allow us to see which system is best or whether the taking on of an additional lawsuit is worthwhile.

Some say that STEP is better. I'll buy that when numbers are produced which demonstrate it is better for our town. I'll bet that each collection system has it's benefits and drawbacks, just like each WWTP location has benefits and drawbacks. The questions for the County really now boils down to what is the best bang for the buck and how can we keep our aquifer as healthy as possible.

If you believe STEP is best, explain why. If you believe that the County has a bias, show us evidence of that bias.

My gosh it's late ... gotta get to bed ... but first I must take the dog out :)

" It sounds as if your understanding of the situation is a bit backwards."

.......I don't understand it "frontwards" either. I can only relate it to my credit cards. If I am late or miss apayment, I am charged a hefty late charge. Does this hold true in "Official" business? If so, I can see why they did it.

billie dune (but I think I know who you were on the other blog...but who cares?)

You remember right, I am not a resident, but that doesn't mean or I never said I don't have an "interest" in your problem. You take too much for granted. As for you calling me a hypocrite, you are partially right,but that was before I was truly saved...thanks to people like you who showed me how wrong people can treat others with personal attacks, character slander...your pal Mike comes to mind....and of course Together tops the list.....then there was sandpuppy, another "gem"....and of course you. In the days of duffo and coalbas, I had just accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior and had not yet understood exactly what that meant. Since my sins were forgiven, it matters not what you think since I am BORN AGAIN!

Did you receive a 218 ballot? Were you assessed? Do you have a lien on your house? If not, if you intend to voluntarily hook up later at a very minimal cost to you, contributing virtually nothing toward infrastructure -- and you won't have your street torn up -- then how can you say you live in the "Prohibition Zone" in any other way than technically?What degree stakeholder are you in this sewer debate then?

You asked me here to prove that I know who you are and I responded here. Guess you underestimated me.

I can't email you on the side, and regardless of some of your comments, which I have long considered offensive, I have no intention of sharing your identity with, say, Lisa, or anyone for that matter. I would like to explain why but I can't.

You put a lot on the line there, and you lucked out with me, oddly enough. Some people do have a code they live by, you know.

However, at least you were honest enough to cop to who you are, and I give you credit for that. I hope and wonder if you would do the same for me if I were in your sharkskin shoes. I doubt it.

We do not share the same beliefs. I do not believe that Gordon, Richard or Maria have acted or are acting in the best interests of the whole community. Quite the opposite.

If you choose to peddle your "beliefs" by constantly blogging your deep-seeded biases, that's your business, but I must question your credentials as a stakeholder in all this and therefore what business you have weighing in so heavily when it's not hitting your pocketbook at all.

getrealosos, like it or not, shark with his kindness, caring for the community, and clear-eyed logic in outlining what has happened, speaks for many of us in the PZ, certainly me and my friends. He is articulating what we may not be able to express. We are very glad that he is speaking out. We encourage him to continue.

Too bad if YOU don't agree, but that is the way of politics, isn't it?

getrealosos... First of YOU certainly do not speak for my family, friends or this community...!!!

You may break your arm patting yourself on the back, but you are still spouting untrue rumors... and for all your ego and bluster, you remain a liar as you know those rumors to be fabrications of some very vindictive folks... You are nothing more than a liar who hides behind rumor you helped create...

Your vindictive streak is so much the vein of the Schicker led CSD... You don't care to hear truth, it gets in the way of your own agenda... Schicker hasn't listened to the community in 3 years, we wouldn't expect a sheep such as your self to be any different....

I really don't give a damn about YOUR beliefs, so don't try peddling your silly BS expecting the community to swallow that nonsense...

...I am sorry you had to play blog cop and open up on Shark... He has made more sense and is far more knowledgeable than you will ever be... You continue to epitomize all the lack of morality displayed by the recall team and Directors... You have actually shown less morality than Julie Tacker or who ever she wants to be called these day...

I did receive a 218 ballot. I am also paying for the bond to design the first system.

In discussions with the County it is clear that we would be paying "our share" of the collection system and WWTF construction, just like Vista-de-Oro.

I'll be facing exactly the same cost structure that folks in Vista-de-Oro are facing. That's my stake. If you are suggestion that that's not good enough for me to have a well reasoned opinion, it would be both wrong and offensive. The only thing that would cause me to not tie into the system is if the cost gets too high. Essentially cost-wise, what is good for you is good for me and visa-versa.

If you're going to question people's opinions based on where they live (and I don't necessarily think that you should, but you seem to have adopted this approach), I would suggest that this should have happened years back when Gail started fiddling in PZ business.

I did not underestimate you (or your knowledge of who I might be) ... but as I explained before, your insistence that I did not live in the PZ made me think that you were confused about who I was. I hope this point is clear. After all, if you tell a person "I know you have red hair" but if they have brown hair, they will think that you are mistaken.

As to e-mail and anonymity ... I would suggest that if you are interested in e-mailing me but if you don't want to be found out, there are anonymizers out there to provide e-mail security. If you are simply not interested in e-mail for any reason, however, I would appreciate it if you would bring up here things that I have written that you consider offensive. It has not been my goal to offend and I apologize for any offense I may have caused.

Like I said, your partial outing of me will give enough info to those who would want to know my identity if they truly want to put in the time to figure it out. Even so, no worries, mate. The important thing in this discussion isn't so much my name but the give-n-take and the questions that are answered and those that are not. You say that I put something on the line. I don't think so ... or if I did, it wasn't a whole lot on the line. After all, you did know who I am and if you figured it out, I am sure that others could as well. Nope, if someone really wants to play dirty in town, I would expect some threats in my mailbox soon. The problem is that I've dealt with worse in my life already and I won't cave just because of threats. The truth and the power of open and honest communication will win out in the long run.

On that issue, I am troubled that you believe that if you were to share your identity with me in confidence that you think I would share it. Perhaps I can't convince you of that, but I would like you to understand that when I give my word, I stand behind it. As for your sharkskin shoes comment, I am now wondering whether you really know me. I tend to be barefoot or in sandals and I don't own any shoes that would be confused for sharkskin :)

While you might doubt that Maria (for example) is acting in the best interests of the community, don't you at least think that she is promoting what she believes is best for our town?

As for beliefs versus biases ... we've all got 'em. Again, if you're going to question people who don't have a financial stake, what about Ron and Gail. They've had more influence on our town than I have and they have far less at stake than I do.

I still welcome the idea of meeting up sometime or chatting via e-mail. But that's up to you.

It's getting late. This whole "Gotcha!" routine is getting out of style. I don't really care who is who because everyone has some internally manifested identity crisis in terms of their beliefs.

I had to read "Frank"'s response to me a couple of times because it didn't make much sense to me, given that Karen did not actually set up the event, it was Gail with Surfrider and Orenco. Karen just so happened to be attending that particular event as she has attended quite a few of Maria's events. Additionally, McPherson had not attended any of the events that Karen, herself, initiated.

Don't get me wrong. Gail is bad news and a diagnosed pathological liar (saying, "My husband is dying as a result of a malignant rectal tumor!" to get out of attending her own PZLDF meetings), but truth be told, there is a clear separation of ideas between Karen and Gail as well as between Karen and the new board.

Gee, Frank, have you ever considered using a period to separate each fragmented thought of yours?

ososchange says:"Karen did not actually set up the event, it was Gail with Surfrider and Orenco. Karen just so happened to be attending that particular event as she has attended quite a few of Maria's events."

Sorry, you have misinformation. Karen was the announcer and question poser to the panel of the questions that Gail sorted and handed to her at the Orenco event. That is a little more than "attending" the event. Guess you were not there, I was. Who told you that Karen merely attended?

Karen has not attended ANY of Maria's events, except the last one in which she was invited by Maria to participate. Who told you otherwise?

You know who I am and I know who you are -- so you know that this is true.

Whoever is giving you information on Karen is not doing a very good job.

The events that WH2O organizes are community based events, not opportunities for me or anyone else to be singled out and on camera.

This past event was the first one Karen had attended and yes, I did ask for her help. She was also the one that made sure that PZLDF/CCW had table space and they were the only display that talked about the sewer and "compliance and property rights..."

At least I admit who my friends are whether I'm going to suffer judgment from it or not. Karen told me she was directly working on organizing the Ripley/Orenco event so I agree with Sewertoons, where are you getting your info from? Karen was the moderator and it was printed in the programs so not clear on "just so happened to be attending..." with Gail handing her the questions.

It was a chance to get Karen on camera and then try to get it run on channel 20. How is that not ties to this board as the board decides what gets run on channel 20?

I agree with PG13 - even though I was being sassy and obtuse - candidates should fess up. If they have strong ties to the CDO lawsuit and PZLDF, be honest about it. If they have been personal "helpers" of members of the board, fess up to it. I have friends with strong ties to Measure B and the Public Waste Lawsuit - misspending of dedicated tax monies - it's not personal, it needs to be resolved and I would like to see the consultants held accountable rather than the individuals but the individuals are the only ones that can hold the consultants and attorneys responsible, not me.

I believe the board could possibly have moved forward with an alternative plant out of town and still do not understand the intricacies of what happened. I sincerely hoped they had a real plan that had enough shape and form to take hold. Yes, I believed them for about 3weeks and then gave up and saw BWS show up.

The assumption that I got involved because of Richard and Gordon is totally untrue - when I worked for the atty in town and we were working on a case and BWS was the atty for the city and responsible for promoting the over development of an area OUT OF WATER- defendant. I wanted to know why they were here and when I saw what was happening, I got involved. Not to bird-dog directors but to listen very carefully to BWS/Wildan. If they donate to a campaign, it won't be mine!

I'm still confused over how you could possibly think the comments on this blog are totally skewed against the current board. Seems to me there is a broad spectrum of perspectives on this blog. From the recall election I - and others, including Ann - have often supported the current board. We've also noted their screw-up's. Face it, they have not been a successful board. Not saying they were dealt a clean hand to play and that the members of the previous board haven't done everything they could to screw the elected members of the community beginning before they even left office. (shame!) Given that, I can't claim the TW lawsuit has no basis. Or that removing boxes of records from the CSD office was a benign act.

I do agree with you on many things. Including the sad hilarity of Richard's self-proclaimed righteousness, the sad misplaced revenge of the TW lawsuit, and the county's long historical ineptitude in most-things-Los-Osos. All of these have been discussed openly on this blog.

I don't agree that if somebody doesn't live in the PZ they can't have an opinion on any of this. The CSD is a community agency not just a PZ agency. I think the delineation of the PZ was a HUGE DUMB MISTAKE. We all share the same problem set. The PZ is grossly unfair. And the citizens in the PZ have borne a grossly unfair burden. (BTW, your info about me - like with Shark - is incomplete. You're jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. My family has interests both outside and inside the PZ. So why shouldn't we vote for our future in Los Osos?)

Also, I believe in the value of anonymity on blogs. I hafta stand with Shark Inlet, Sewertoons, Mike, Maria and many others who think your recent outing campaign sucks. Why is outing somebody so important to you? What do you get out of it?

While I appreciated your straightforward description for why you are voting for Karen (thank you) I find most of your comments to be more squawk and less thought. I've learned a lot by listening to others who disagree with me. Isn't that what blogging's all about? And I've learned from you too. But the ratio of static to meaningful content is higher in your comments than many others. Mudslinging, caterwauling, threats and innuendo grow old real fast when not backed up with facts and explanation.

I'm sure you (and others) will find plenty to fault here. That's cool. Even I find fault in some of it ;) My world isn't quite so B&W as some of yours are. I'm distracted by shades of gray.

"I know Gordon and Richard, I met Pandora a little over a year ago, June '07, Bob Semmonson is on the TAC with us, I met Frank Freiler when I campaigned last time."

Maria, a bit of advice, FIRE your campaign manager, now.

You just aligned yourself with the exact same people that brought Los Osos ten-years-and-counting worth of "better, cheaper, faster," "bait and switchy," and "fine out of existence."

I'm serious, if you really want to win a seat on the CSD Board, you need to read my blog.

Allow me to show you how the LOCSD elections have gone for Solution Groupers since they promised Los Ososans a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75 per month" in 1998:

5-0, 5-0, 5-0 -- then, after Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was published in September, 2004, two months before the next LOCSD Board election -- 3-2, 0-5, 0-4-1. (Hey, "Laughing at You," still laughing?)

You do realize that Nash-Karner actually developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," don't you?

Apparently, you don't, or else you wouldn't be writing things like this:

Ron, I don't have a campaign manager. No on should answer your emails because they are a continued obsession of Pandora.

This community moved the sewer by passing a 218 vote. If you think that you are still digging up some collusion to build the mid-town site you are not paying attention.

The community is compliant as long as the county continues to make progress. Los Osos fell out of compliance because we were failing to make progress. Check out the TSO's all along the way.

You give power to people they don't have and too much credit to individuals who truly have nothing to gain other than some attempt to help our community participate in its destiny.

After the Solutions Group was told that the entire community had to be sewered do you recall what happened to the project costs? They ended up being very similar to the costs of the county plan. You should do an article on all the delays that have hampered this community and please start with 1972 when one of the very first reports came out regarding LO and the water supply/quality issue.

You just want to talk about the brief period of time you were in LO but never bothered to put the time sequence together and when you do that, there is a shared responsibility surrounding the regulatory agencies, the county and individuals in our community. Do your homework Ron, this is a three and a half decade issue, not just a "3 blocks downwind" issue.

I am glad you brought up campaign promises by those running for LOCSD board.

I've asked you this before and don't remember you giving a satisfactory answer, so heregoes again ...

You remind us that the Solutions Group promised us a $38.75 per month solution and failed but why have you never ... ever ... ever ... raised the same issue about the recall candidates who promised us a $100/month solution and failed.

After all, if there was evidence to suggest that $38.75 wouldn't be enough back in 1998, there certainly was even more evidence in 2005 that $100/month was something the candidates must have known was impossible to achieve. (Heck, at least the solutions group had a penciled out plan ... which is more than we can say about what the recall candidates have shown us of their plan.)

Rephrasing the question ... Ron, if it is not okay with you for one group to fudge the facts, why don't you have any problem with the other group telling bald faced lies?

By the way, how's your apology to Maria coming along. We've waited a long time for you to do the right thing so we're really expecting this to be heartfelt and chock-full-o-flowery prose.

I didn't say she merely attended the event. Yes, she attended the event. We got that established.

I'm just saying that she was not the sole ringleader of the event. The event was a coordinated group effort and Gail had wanted to do an event, like this one, for a while now (perhaps reminiscent of the mundane 2005 CSD workshops).

This isn't insider information, folks. This is common knowledge.

I think that if "Frank" is allowed to make those claims that Karen reflects the new board, I'm definitely entitled to make the claim that Maria Kelly is the voice of the old, recalled board.

First, I don't think that GetReal was really intending to out me ... but because I asked him to prove it, he did. (I figured that he was most certainly wrong because he said he knew that I lived outside the PZ.) I don't hold any ill-will toward GetReal over the matter and I would hope that no one else would either. Minor collateral damage at the most.

I will also disagree with you about the last few actions of the pre-recall board. Even if they hadn't started construction, there would be the same set of lawsuits. After all, contracts for construction had been signed and then the construction didn't occur. The RWQCB would still have fined for no progress. The SWRCB would still have asked for their money back and the original $20M bond to design a system was nearly entirely used up.

The post-recall board really only had one decision to make and the two choices were to proceed with TriW or to open Pandora's box of havoc on our community. They chose the later because they perhaps didn't understand the implications of their action. If they did understand the consequences of their choice, they deserve a good public flogging for the debt we're all now under (Ron says $80M which is over $5000 for each and every resident of the town). They were fussing over a project costing $160M but have willingly taken on half that amount debt-wise with no benefit attached to that debt.

Right after shutting the computer down last night I thought of another reason why ... for the CSD board election ... it shouldn't matter whether someone is inside or outside the PZ.

The sewer is off the LOCSD agenda until after one is built. (Sure, if the property owners say "no thanks" to the County plan, AB2701 says the LOCSD takes over again, but they are in no position, debt-wise, to take on any project as large as a sewer. They have no ability to borrow money for design and and acquisition. They couldn't even borrow enough money to revamp the TriW plan even if the property owners approved of such borrowing via a 218 vote. Heck, they can't even afford a 218 vote according to Dan Blesky way back he was still here and before the money all disappeared.)

The issues before the CSD have nothing to do with the sewer and so the in/out of the PZ question should be viewed as little more than a way of trying to discredit people who have an opinion that differs.

I think that the key for this next board is to work on post-sewer issues and to bring our community together again. The question is who is best for that task.

Again, I have to question Karen's willingness to do something that should send up red flags in any conscience and her willingness to work with Gail in the past. Maybe she is independent of Gail nowdays, but I don't see it that way (witness the recent Friday event) and she hasn't made it clear that she's independent.

I would hope that she could come here and participate in this online discussion. It would be great to ask her questions about what she supports and opposes.

Shark Inlet said > I don't think that GetReal was really intending to out me ... but because I asked him to prove it, he did.... I don't hold any ill-will toward GetReal over the matter and I would hope that no one else would either. Minor collateral damage at the most.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case then I owe GetReal an apology too. Between your outing and GetReal's oft claims about knowing - in GetReal's own words - 'hidden' information about various commentors (including me) I presumed the worst. Bad on me. (Truly, that's not like me.) Getrealosos, I apologize.

("Please... is there any way to salvage the project??????????????????," and, "We MUST save this project!" Both quotes from Pandora Nash-Karner to Roger Briggs, one day after the recall election. Yea, that sounds like calm, rational thought. No desperation detected there.)

"After the Solutions Group was told that the entire community had to be sewered do you recall what happened to the project costs? "

The problem with that is (and I know that you don't know this because you weren't around in 1998, and Pandora and Gordon aren't going to tell you), the RWQCB told Pandora and Gordon "that the entire community had to be sewered" loooong before the election that formed the CSD on their "better, cheaper, faster" project -- a sewer project that did NOT sewer the entire community -- but the Solution Group, led and aggressively marketed by Nash-Karner, refused to listen to them, or to the Coastal Commission, or to the County of SLO, or to Questa Engineering, and she kept aggressively marketing "better, cheaper, faster" right up to the election.

You said: I believe the board could possibly have moved forward with an alternative plant out of town and still do not understand the intricacies of what happened.....

Maria, you need to understand what happened to move forward in some balanced, intelligent direction or you will fall on your face. This CSD board needed to hold a 218 before doing anything. This is what the State Water Board insisted. They also wanted Measure B taken care of first before handing out the 2nd installment of the loan (or any more money).

The recalled CSD board also knew they had to hold a 218 vote, but they didn't want to. They broke the law and the State Water Board broke state and federal law in 2005 by loaning out to the Tri-W project. I dare you to say the vote wasn't needed and that the project would have been paid by fees and charges (all $154 million).

Sam Blakeslee assured certain people that the CDOs and NOVs would go away after the 218 passed, as it was only used to get the 218 passed.

I don't hate you. It took all of five minutes to do the scramble of your name. Can you deal with that in a normal fashion? However, I don't like what your "heroes" have done and want to do to Los Osos. The county's 218 was illegal and you know it, yet you thank the County on a weekly basis. Please tell us what the County has ever done for Los Osos. The County will profit from this project, and the more they spend on a project, the more profit they make. You think that's right?

You say Ron is obsessed with Pandora, so I have to ask who wouldn't be with the damage she's caused?

I've got a question/poll proposed here: WHO HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE TO LOS OSOS: GAIL OR PANDORA?

Also, you say you promote Obama. Obama would NEVER promote what you and your Dreamer pals are promoting that will tax hundreds and hundreds of people out of their homes, especially when we're on the verge of a depression.

To PG-13:

You say, I don't agree that if somebody doesn't live in the PZ they can't have an opinion on any of this....

I think everyone has their right to their opinion. I don't think that people who don't have to pay anything for the outrageously priced sewer should be promoting the most expensive one, day after day after day.

The PZ itself is unfair and illegal. The PZ itself has caused much of the division in the community. Of course, those who live outside the PZ are fine with the PZ line (i.e. Richard LeGros, Julie Tacker and Gail McPherson).It's not just wrong, it's illegal. And it's not just illegal, it's immoral.

If you own any property in the PZ, of course you should get a vote, but it is unfair for people who live outside the PZ to get a vote on the project when their only aim is to rid the town of who they don't want here.

If you were paying attention, Ted, I half outed Shark because he told me to. I never outed you. I don't out, I challenge. I haven't threatened anyone, although some feel threatened when their fantasy world cracks and they are forced to deal with reality. Everything I've written is the truth, as it pertains to, as Maria calls them, "the intricacies" otherwise known as FACTS.

It's a good idea to learn the facts before your form opinions in concrete. Even if you don't like them, knowing them will go a long way towards preventing you from playing the fool, yet again.

This is what the CSD closed sessin is all about....odd that the CSD did not announce this earlier (last Thursday's meeting)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Immediate Release Contact: Roger BriggsSeptember 18, 2007(805) 549-3147

SAN LUIS OBISPO - A San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge threw out a lawsuit which challenged cease and desist orders that the Central Coast Regional Water Board issued to a group of Los Osos residents because it was ambiguous and unintelligible.

The Water Board orders require the residents to cease violations of state regulations prohibiting the use of septic systems in Los Osos/Baywood Park.

On September 10, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Barry T. LaBarbera signed an order tossing out a lawsuit filed by PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund) and others, calling it “uncertain.”

The state’s objection to the legal claim argued that the lawsuit filed by PZLDF, the Los Osos CSD and others, was a “kitchen sink” pleading, and legally defective on a number of substantive and procedural grounds, said Michael Hughes, a deputy attorney general.

The current lawsuit by the Los Osos dischargers has been rejected by the court and the petitioners have until October 1, 2007, to file an amended petition (against the Water Board only) correcting the defects stated in the order, if they can.

If the petitioners fail to file an amended petition, the lawsuit is over.

The court summarily rejected the petitioners’ request that the court reconsider their request for interim relief. The petitioners had illegally filed the request without notice to the Water Board.

The preliminary court ruling a few weeks ago was incorrectly reported in the press as a victory for Los Osos petitioners, leading to some public confusion. The final ruling is available at the following link: www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los_osos/documents/ordersustainingdemurrer.pdf

This legal ruling in favor of the Water Board continues a string of court victories over many years against challenges to the Water Board’s actions to obtain compliance with water quality laws.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Go to the web site for the actual ruling.....the PZDIF case is good as over. Maker onw onder why the CSD spent over $200,000 on this lawsuit. Also, we should all ask what PZDIF has put inot the legal costs, as they are contractually required to pay 75% of the legal costs. If the CSD spent $200,000, I would assumn that PLDIF has paid $750,000 in legal fees. If they haven't, does that mean the CSD is paying all the legal fees regardless of the contract with PLDIF?

The judge threw out the major portions of the lawsuit, excused the SWRCB from the lawsuit, and has placed the entire cost of the State to produce the administrative record on PLDIF (which will be tens of thousands of dollards)

PZLDIF is only allowed to amend their lawsuit on very limited and, frackly, unimportant matters as to the standing of various plantiffs in the lawsuit.

It would be waste of time and money for PZLDIF or the CSD to amend the lawsuit a FOURTH time.

After all the time Ron has spent ranting about TW paying a somewhat bogus (LAFCo dragged the process out some 3x longer than was necessary...) bill to LAFCo, may Ron the Investigative Journalist ought to look into just how much CSD money was actually spent...I'm concerned that we have picked up the tab for the entire legal lawsuit...

So how about it Ron, now that the PZLDF fell flat on their butts again and this CSD has underwritten either all or a portion, but no one in the community knows just how much... How about you finding out for us all just how much this CSD has paid the lawyers and Ron, just how much has PZLDF paid into this fiasco...??? Did they live up to the "agreement" with the CSD...???

...or just maybe getrealosos with all your undercover skills can glean from Karen what her knowledge is of the actual payoff to the Gail led PZLDF legal firms is going to be... We haven't heard from Gail in awhile, but we should be hearing something from Karen if she's still a candidate...

We can probably assume that PZLDF will not be repaying the District for this very frivolus lawsuit... as oppossed to TW actually paying LAFCo...

Perhaps PZLDF will provide us copies of their legal bills so that we can be assured that they've passed on only 25% of the costs to the LOCSD.

Assuming that the LOCSD has been paying only 25% of the costs, it would stand to reason that PZLDF has got some really rich members.

I would have no problems at all if PZLDF wanted to stiff BWS entirely, after all several have told us here that it is okay for CCLO to stiff Parker and Hawley, so it must be okay for PZLDF as well. However, once PZLDF starts to rope in the district as a whole, I would expect that district officials would verify that the district is paying only 25% of the total paid, not the total owed. It should not be the case that PZLDF gets the LOCSD to agree to pay 25% and then PZLDF walks away after having paid zero. For the LOCSD to cut any checks to PZLDF or CCLO without rock-solid information that PZLDF actually has paid their legal bills would be financial mismanagement and quite likely cronyism to boot.

"You say Ron is obsessed with Pandora, so I have to ask who wouldn't be with the damage she's caused?"

I LOVE Pandora! She makes for one of the best stories I've ever read, let alone wrote.

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again, because it's so true, the Los Osos sewer story is nothing more than a side bar of the intensely excellent Nash-Karner story.

What I love about her story is that the subject matter is universally interesting -- how one person, through a ton of marketing (a ton of marketing), can get a town, and government agencies, to do things they normally wouldn't. Jedi mind tricked them. Absolutely fascinating.

If a reader can't recognize what a great story the Nash-Karner story is, then that reader doesn't know what makes a great story.

GRLO also wrote:

"It's a good idea to learn the facts before your form opinions in concrete. Even if you don't like them, knowing them will go a long way towards preventing you from playing the fool, yet again."

That is an excellent point, and, I recognize what is happening with Maria, because I've seen it before, with good 'ol Mike Drake, the former public information officer for the CSD.

Maria is doing exactly what Mike did. He only heard one side of the story -- Nash-Karner's side. So when I started peppering him with questions on "bait and switchy," and why was his employer building a multi-million dollar park in a mid-town sewer plant, he had no answers.

I mean, it was just, "Humuna, humuna, huh?"

It was embarrassing for him, but it wasn't his fault. Pandora and co. set him up by not fully informing him of the situation, and then tossing him out for public consumption. If I was Mike, I would have been pissed at Bruce, and Pandora, and Gordon, and etc. for not telling me the full truth before I started handling questions from the press.

Obviously, she is just getting Gordon's and Nash-Karner's version of the story, and that sets her up to publicly write things like, "I met Pandora a little over a year ago," without the knowledge that Nash-Karner actually developed and implemented a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence."

Mike and Maria did/do the classic "f-up and trust Nash-Karner" scenario that so many people, including government agencies, do.

And the only thing I blame Maria and Mike for, is that they f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner, like everyone else (save SewerWatch, of course). So, it's really not their fault. They both seem like nice people, they should just take GRLO's advice, "It's a good idea to learn the facts before your form opinions in concrete."

I just can't recommend strongly enough to Mike and Maria (and ALL of Los Osos, for that matter): Learn why the Coastal Commission called the 2000 - -2004 LOCSD Boards "bait and switchy." Learn what the dramatic fall-out was of "bait and switchy." Learn about what really happened with "better, cheaper, faster." Learn about things like "fine out of existence."

BY a CSD candidate simply saying, "Ron is obsessed with Pandora," without knowing the REAL answers to "bait and switchy," "better, cheaper, faster," "fine out of existence," well, that candidate is just setting themselves up.

And we've seen that twice now on this extremely lengthy thread. Maria, apparently, wasn't aware that Nash-Karner implemented a "strategy" to have the entire town fined out of existence, and Maria also wasn't aware that throughout 1998, the RWQCB told Nash-Karner that her "better, cheaper, faster" project wasn't going to work in Los Osos LONG before the election that formed the CSD, on the back of Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster", dead-on-arrival project, but she kept marketing the hell out if it anyway... right up to the election, and it worked, and made her the #1 vote-getter on the initial board, where, after she immediately dumped the county's "ready to go" project (at a cost of nearly $6 million to COUNTY taxpayers), she spent two years chasing "better, cheaper, faster" before she finally realized it wasn't going to work, just like all of the professionals predicted, two years earlier, and MONTHS before the election.

See? It's not an "obsession" with Nash-Karner, she just won't get out of the way. Everywhere I turn in this story, there's Nash-Karner's name.

On a journalism level? Gotta love it... and I do. (I mean, do you really think my book is going to be about a friggin' sewer project, or how one person that learned early on (1990) how to pop "campaign material" out of a Macintosh computer was able to tear the community fabric of a small town into iddy-biddy, tiny, little pieces over a two-decade span, and, in the process, cost California taxpayers a fortune? Which book would YOU rather read?)

He just told us that he views the Los Osos sewer story thru only one lens, the lens of it must be tied to Pandora because otherwise it isn't interesting to me.

Ron, essentially you are telling us that you mis-named your blog sewerwatch when it should have been named pandorawatch. No wonder you ignore questions about the whole sewer fiasco ... you don't view those questions as related to Pandora.

As for the issue of who f*ck*d *p ... I would suggest that a journalist who purports to understand things related to the Los Osos sewer thing should look at the money. Without a solid idea of the cost part of the whole cost/benefit equation, one cannot adequately address any questions ... other than questions based in obsession and personality.

"Karen also wasn't aware that throughout 2005, the RWQCB and SWRCB told Lisa that her "$100/month out of town" project wasn't going to work in Los Osos LONG before the recall election that changed the CSD, on the back of Gail's "$100/month out of town", dead-on-arrival project, but she kept marketing the hell out if it anyway... right up to the election, and it worked, and made her friends the majority of the board, where, after she immediately dumped the LOCSD's "ready to go" project (at a cost of nearly $20 million to Los Osos homeowners), she spent two years chasing "out of town" and hasn't yet realized that the LOCSD cannot accomplish that project, just like all of the professionals predicted, two years earlier, and MONTHS before the election."

What's the point? A simple word-swap makes it clear that Ron still hasn't pursued the question of whether the recall candidates and Gail were lying to us when they promoted their "$100/month out of town" plan. Had they told us the truth ... that they had no plan and that they would likely drive us tens of millions into debt with no noticeable benefit ... I rather doubt they would have been elected.

Interesting is the marketing going on right now for Venditti. She was moderator at basically a biased-against-gravity STEP event, spearheaded by Gail, populated with Dana Ripley and the Orenco salesman and woefully biased "gravity information." She parks her campaign table next to the gigantic cutaway STEP tank. Julie puts out spin in the form of a question for candidates at the upcoming forum, "…should the project come back to the CSD…" (as if!!!! - like the bankrupt CSD could plausibly handle the job -), so Karen would be aligned with the Ripley/Orenco "solution" should the project come back.

Well, you have to hand it to Ripley and Orenco for keepin' those sales pitches going so they can get their piece of Los Osos.

You say, "Had they told us the truth ... that they had no plan and that they would likely drive us tens of millions into debt with no noticeable benefit ... I rather doubt they would have been elected."

You just don't "get it" Shark. What cost us tens of millions into debt was the recalled board starting a project without a 218, days before a recall election, and/or Measure B. Not having a 218 -- THAT'S A BIGGIE!!!

And, they would have been elected anyway. Forget about the "$100 promise." People didn't want a sewer in the middle of town, and that's because any sane, intelligent, future-thinking person wouldn't.

P.S. You made a big deal out of me outing you, yet you keep using your "name" scrambled on your header??? I guess you want to get caught. Don't blame me, pal.

P.P.S. How much were you assessed by the County in their most recent 218??? Can you answer that without using so much toilet paper???

Are you seriously asking us to believe that had the recall candidates promised to stop the project, incur fines and be sued by the contractors, spend millions on lawyers and to be so inept at running the CSD that wouldn't have enough money to get another project to a 218 vote ... that they would have been elected.

As for whether people want something in town or out of town ... I suspect that if they were given the choice to pay 50% more to get an out of town treatment plant, they would say "no thank you".

ps ... I didn't make a big deal about you outing me. No worries.

pps ... In the recent County 218 vote, they didn't give us a vote because they didn't want to allow the appearance that the vote was tainted. You've got to admit that if we were participating and the vote was within 60 of the 50-50 point, many would complain. At the same time the 218 vote of undeveloped properties takes place is when we'll have to make a decision yes or no. If we decide no, we won't be able to tie in later without paying back all the design and construction costs plus interest.

The truth is that a very vocal activist didn't want any sewer, anywhere...!!! PERIOD...!!! Everything else is smokescreen and emotional hype drummed up by your pal McPherson... Tacker was just looking for a cause and another new "boy friend"... Schicker.. well she is just plain stupid, but has a credential but no common sense or managerial experience...and they all bought into the crazy antics of Barrow, Swanson and Racano... Forget Pandora, go look at the track record of that bunch of losers... Just how much more will we pay to continue the sewer war, when there is no sewer to even hollar about...??? It's the County's project... I just hope the rest of the County gets to help pay for putting up with the "No Sewer/Move the Sewer" actions of the past 3 years.... In spite of Schicker and Tacker, there will be a sewer, much more expensive than needed to be, but not so expensive that we won't be able to pay... Thank goodness that Schicker and Tacker were stopped before they succeeded in in their plan of making any sewer so expensive no one could afford it...

Oct 26 is coming and some of their tactics and mismanagement will be held up for the whole community to see... It won't be Pandora, but it will be Schicker, Tacker, Chuck, John and Steve who will be standing there explaining why they thought they could derail any sewer and why they thought they could steal from the public to pay for some legal crusade to make any sewer to expensive for Los Osos...!!!

Your comments about the new board not getting elected if this and if that are just a lot of hot air, i.e. "what if" the new board was "honest" when they ran ... as "honest" as the recalled board in jump-starting the fatally flawed Tri-W project (since rejected by the NWRI)? Save the sermon for your kiddie corps of ignorant grovelers. The lowest common denominator on both sides here is, as you must know, "win at all cost." Do you think Maria is being "honest" by speaking out of all three sides of her mouth (Gordon, Richard, Pandora) just to get elected? C'mon!!! SAY ANYTHING, DO ANYTHING TO WIN -- that's what Maria learned well from Gail.

I don't believe the CSD was just stopping the project -- they wanted to move the sewer plant location.

The State Water Board was acting as if they could move it (same with the Blakeslee "Compromise"), but the State Water Board said the CSD would have to hold the 218 and take care of Measure B first.

Just imagine if the State Water Board didn't hand out the first installment of the loan! We would have none of these lawsuits and/or fines BECAUSE the RWQCB could not fine us, because we weren't allowed to vote on the 218. They would have to allow for that. That is THE LAW.

The contractors knew there was no 218 vote and did the work anyway, and the state knew there was no dedicated way to pay the loan back. Duh! Contractor, eat my shorts! Yet, amazingly, they will get money in mediation and/or do the same work on the next project.

Shark, you know I'm right. The recalled board and State Water Board screwed up big time and cost the community millions. I'm not saying this board has done any better, believe me. In fact, I'm starting to see that no CSD or any of its directors could have actually pulled off a project this size. Pandora should have never formed the CSD (but it was a clever way to get it out of the County's hands and have the PZ pay the big bill).

P.S. Oh so you weren't assessed anything. Thanks for making me pull that out of you after asking you a couple times and you evaded the question each time. Mighty forthright of you, Mr. Honesty.

Sewertoons,

I believe that ponds were acceptable to most at the Tri-W site...but, I have to admit, that was pretty stupid too. On top of that (like Ron says) Pandora put together a terrific marketing campaign.

You're sounding pretty LOTA to me. You're bringing up a whole bunch of issues which have been discussed here before (like whether a 218 vote was necessary or whether a revenue stream on a utility is sufficient to guarantee a loan). This is fine, but you're writing with great certainty and your statements aren't universally accepted.

As for who screwed up ... I think it is fair to say that the County, RWQCB, County, LOCSD, CCC, County, RWQCB and LOCSD screwed up. It does look as if a bunch of well-intentioned people made a bunch of reasonable at face value decisions which have had a huge negative consequence. If I had to rank groups by culpability for our not having a sewer, I would put them (highest to lowest) as:

Why things will be so darn expensive compared to what could have been:

The CountyThe post-recall LOCSD boardThe pre-recall LOCSD board

On your postscript ... if you need to ask a question three times before you get the answer you want it sounds like you weren't phrasing yourself very carefully. Honestly, I've not tried to evade anything.

Let me ask you a carefully worded question. How much have you already paid on your 218 assessment? How much will you have to pay over the life of the loan? How much will the owners of currently undeveloped properties have to pay? How much will I have to pay? If you're trying to make hay over the issue that I wasn't included in the first 218 vote (and that choice was the County's and they made it to make sure that habitual complainers would not have additional ammunition), you're barking up the wrong tree.

Go back and look over your questions and my answers. You reading evasion into our discussion would be about as reasonable as if I were to say that you are saying that Karen is tied to Gail at the hip. Neither would be right ... both are huge stretches from what we might have said.

Lastly ... and on your first point ... just because one may believe that the dreamers are fudging things to win (and in retrospect, it looks as if they weren't fudging much at all but were downright prescient) doesn't make it okay to tell your own lies to win.

Maybe some others think it is okay to lie just to win, but I would rather not have that sort of "leadership" in the White House or on the LOCSD board. That being said, the central part of the recall campaign was to move the location of the treatment plant. What those campaigning for the recall never bothered to ask themselves nor bothered to tell us was how much it would cost to "move the sewer". They pretended it would save money when it seems like the net result will be that the costs have gone up by 50%. While you say you don't need a sermon, what I've yet to hear is how we're better off because of the recall. The only way I can imagine someone feeling that we're better off because of the recall is if they're so darn wealthy that they don't mind paying a whole bunch more.

Interesting you should mention LOTA. I was not part of that suit then, but I have to admit I would support it now if they or somebody had the money and guts to pick it up, because I know, I was here, that we were never given a 218 vote. I don't know why Lisa, Chuck, Steve and Julie don't pick it up now, but nobody ever said they were the "smart board."

As you know, that case was "dismissed without prejudice" and there it lies today, a ticking timebomb in the shadows. The AG knows this too. The State Water Board has clearly said: THEY HAD TO HAVE A DEDICATED SOURCE OF REPAYMENT.

This was just one of several factors in the successful recall of the corrupt board members. Many folks were saying "I want my 218 vote!" And look what they got, will you!? Millions in overnight fines beyond the pale of reason and a kick down the slippery slope of bankruptcy...and a sewer to cleanse the town of 70% of its residents.

Thank you Gordon, Richard, Stan and now Maria and Marshall for your contributions to the whole community.

I do think that one of the mis-steps of the recalled boardmembers was to go along with Buel and the SWRCB staffers who said that no 218 was necessary. I actually believe that this is the correct interpretation of the law, but it didn't play well ... at all.

Had they come back to us in 2004 and said something like "well, we've done our best to put together a plan which will meet RWQCB requirements, will allow us to get SWRCB low interest financing ... which is huge ... and passes muster with the CCC ... but as a district you've got to approve it" it would have been better.

Sure, there would have been an increase in taxes, but the monthly payments on the sewer bill would have been less by an identical amount.

While I disagreed with the LOTA lawsuit, it did seem the most principled and the most well thought out of the many lawsuits filed by folks trying to stop TriW.

I disagree that the board then or the board now is corrupt. Inept or unaware or misguided would be better words.

I also have to disagree with laying the entire bankruptcy at the feet of Richard. We all know that if the post-recall board hadn't stopped TriW, there would be no bankruptcy.

On the matter of gentrification ... we're certainly going to have an even worse problem with this than under the leadership of the last board. After all, if costs are going up because of their choices, it will be worse.

Lastly, I think it entirely unfair for you to paint our current CSD candidates as being aligned with the recalled boardmembers. You've presented no compelling evidence of any link and certainly the close working relationship between Karen and Gail and Lisa would suggest that if any candidate should be branded by their past, it should be Karen.

My understanding from talking to the County is that vacant lot owners down the line will have a 218 vote that would actually count. IF IT DOESN'T PASS, then the County will place fees on the vacant lot owners.

As far as the 218 being required for the Tri-W project, from what I heard, the AG's argument for LOTA was that the case was moot.

If the recalled board didn't stop the project, yes, we would have Tri-W today, and that was a terribly flawed project, as you must know, and a big mistake in judgment, obviously.

People argue about the Tri-W location not being in the center of town (Mike et al), etc., but it is too close to too many homes, the library, etc. and it was just too dangerous with spills, odors, especially when there are plainly better, sparsely populated locations out of town. Like you say, it's a no-brainer ...for those who had any brains in the first place.

Would you really allow your young children to play there? Maria would. She said so. At a park next to a sewer? Maria would. She said so. And spills into the bay? Maria would. She said so. What are you people thinking ...drinking ...smoking?

And why you? Why do you blog all hours of the night? All hours of the day? Who would do that? If you are doing it for free, then how smart are you? If you are being paid, it makes more sense because you are doing a full-time job for the pro-TW, pro-Tri-W elite. You have a family, does your wife do everything for you, raise the kids, bring you your coffee and meals while you blog continuously? What are you getting out of this to be so compelled to blog and defend 24/7 with what are basically lies disguised as "fair and balanced," just like FOX News?You must be really cracked.

Why did you leave the recalled board off all your lists of those most culpable... or are they who you refer to as the "pre-recall board????" Msn, you're so prejudiced your skin is turning yellow.

You think you're so smart and everyone else is so stupid. What does that make you?

Boy there is a lot there in your last post. Sort of all over the map. I'll reply to some of the issues you raise.

If I recall, the sites that are being promoted as being sufficiently out of town to not cause people to fuss are about as close to the creek as TriW is to Sweet Springs. If you're gonna say that TriW is bad because of potential spills you should probably complain about the other sites as well.

As to my blogging patterns ... why would you even mention it? Is it because you care about me as a person (somehow I doubt it) or because you are trying to suggest that my comments aren't worth much because I sleep less than you choose to or because I blog while watching TV or between other activities. Why would I feel compelled to defend the truth when I have time? Because the truth is important. Again, if you are able to point to a single "lie" by me, I would be appreciative because I am sure that if there was a misunderstanding, I would like to clear it up.

On the question of my calling Richard, Gordon and Stan the pre-recall board, I don't see my choice of wording as prejudiced. Would you prefer I refer to them as the recalled board members and Julie, Lisa and the rest as the bankruptcy board members?

Your final comment is your opinion of what I might be thinking but I am glad that I can reassure you by saying that I don't view myself as smarter or others as less so ... I just pay more attention to Los Osos issues and have taken more time to "do the numbers" than most. Can you say that you've done any calculations about how much inflation will impact the cost of the project or how much a change in the interest rate will affect the monthly cost we all get to pay? I can say that I have done this and few others have. Perhaps it is because I have done such calculations that I was so opposed to the recall, the stopping of TriW. For you to call this bias only reveals your own biases based on your lack of attention to the financial matters.

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.Antoine de Saint-ExuperyThe Little Prince

No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly. Montaigne